A new "catholic" religion?

[JKirkLVNV]

Let us try and see if it is A New Catholic Religion by reviewing the differences between the Consecrations:

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS
“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the
new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR
ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

As we can examine and verify that the words “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” have been altered to for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. “Many” has been removed and replaced with the word “all.” This is a Great change and possibly invalidates all the New Masses. The reason is that the word many was used by Jesus Christ+ himself to institute the sacrament of the Eucharist, as we see in Matthew 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” The words used by Our Lord+ who is God+, “for many unto remission of sins,” represent the efficacy of the blood that Jesus+ shed. Jesus’ blood is effective for the salvation of many, not all men. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is clear and specifically states that Our Lord+ did not mean “all” and therefore didn’t say it.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227:
"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of
God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."( The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, 1982, p. 227. ) As we can see, according to The Catechism of the Council of Trent the words “for all” were specifically not used by Our Lord because they would give a false meaning.

St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist:
"The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault…”(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44. )
The use of “all” changes the meaning of the form of consecration. No one, not even a pope, can change the words that Jesus Christ specifically instituted for a sacrament of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: "…the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign…"( Denzinger 2301. ) Since “all” doesn’t mean the same thing as “many,” the sacrament is not confected in the New Mass.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND
ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.” (De Defectibus, Chap. 5, Part 1).

A new Catholic religion (?).

This has been gone over ad nauseum. Search the threads. If you are correct, then a invalid Mass has been presented to the Church by the Supreme Pontiff, that is to say, error has been taught by the one who cannot lead the Church into error, to the peril, probably to the condemnation of at least two generations of souls. That means Christ has failed in His promise.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2012206:

ThereCanBeOnly1;2012196:

Where are you getting your information from?

Obvisouly you haven’t read Monsignor Gamber, Cardinal Razinger “Spirit of the lIturgy”, Dom Gueranger.

What ARE you talking about? I was addressing Bob’s citation of Trent, which doesn’t say what he thinks it says.

 

[LilyM]

St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist:
"The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault…”(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44. )
The use of “all” changes the meaning of the form of consecration. No one, not even a pope, can change the words that Jesus Christ specifically instituted for a sacrament of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: "…the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign…"( Denzinger 2301. ) Since “all” doesn’t mean the same thing as “many,” the sacrament is not confected in the New Mass.

Why on earth are you mixing up the words of St Alphonsus and Denzinger, worthy theologians though they are, with those of the Popes and Councils, as though the interpretations and theories of St Alphonsus and Denzinger are equally infallible???

St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Yet we acknowledge the wisdom and authority of the Holy Father who declared that particular doctrine as superior to what wisdom and authority St Thomas possesses. The simplest five-year-old schoolchild who today believes in the Immaculate Conception knows better than St Thomas.

And it has been solemly promulgated doctrine for some time that the Church is INCAPABLE of proposing a rite that leads the faithful into IMPIETY, let alone heresy as you are suggesting. For the reason given above - it would mean Christ’s promise has failed us.

I believe it was the very same Council of Trent that declared so, in fact. So your reading and application is incredibly selective. Quit deluding yourself.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I believe it was the very same Council of Trent that declared so, in fact.

Yup, that’s correct, but “traditionalists” tend to gloss over that fact.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Why on earth are you mixing up the words of St Alphonsus and Denzinger, worthy theologians though they are, with those of the Popes and Councils, as though the interpretations and theories of St Alphonsus and Denzinger are equally infallible???

St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Yet we acknowledge the wisdom and authority of the Holy Father who declared that particular doctrine as superior to what wisdom and authority St Thomas possesses. The simplest five-year-old schoolchild who today believes in the Immaculate Conception knows better than St Thomas.

And it has been solemly promulgated doctrine for some time that the Church is INCAPABLE of proposing a rite that leads the faithful into IMPIETY, let alone heresy as you are suggesting. For the reason given above - it would mean Christ’s promise has failed us.

I believe it was the very same Council of Trent that declared so, in fact. So your reading and application is incredibly selective. Quit deluding yourself.

I do not believe it is I that is being selective. I notice you did not comment on Mt 26:28, and thus have been selective in your response. Convenient. Please express your comments on the difference between the wording of the consecration, with references where possible. between the Novus Ordo and TLM.
It is a shame you do not think much of St. Thomas. No need for childish absurdities such as saying "Quit Deluding yourself ". I do not think it appropriate or Christian. Please refrain from immature comments and just cite what you claim and in that way we can learn from what it is you convey, or at least in what is you try to convey.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

This has been gone over ad nauseum. Search the threads. If you are correct, then a invalid Mass has been presented to the Church by the Supreme Pontiff, that is to say, error has been taught by the one who cannot lead the Church into error, to the peril, probably to the condemnation of at least two generations of souls. That means Christ has failed in His promise.

It is not whether I am correct, REMEMBER THESE ARE CITED REFERENCES. I can see that these same references have led you to use the words: …invalid Mass…error has been taught. This is what the thread is asking. Please refute the references cited and at least comment on the difference between the words of Consecration. **Both you and your colleague LilyM have SELECTIVELY failed to address Mt 26:28. **
It is not gone over ad nauseum as you have suggested, it is simple reading and pertinent to this thread. Do not ignore those important quotes, address them.
( I duly hope that this small amount of text is now digestible for you. I apologize if the references were exhausting).

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[BobP123]

And it has been solemly promulgated doctrine for some time that the Church is INCAPABLE of proposing a rite that leads the faithful into IMPIETY, let alone heresy as you are suggesting. For the reason given above - it would mean Christ’s promise has failed us.

Christ’s promise has certainly not failed us. However, it takes no effect to find all sorts of people throughout all of Church history to try to interfere with this promise. Heretics are a dime a dozen and have been around since Christ. And many Popes have been known to sin. Doesn’t mean they weren’t valid Popes, for even Peter denied Christ. It’s just that we humans need to realize it is God’s Church, not ours, so let’s use some common sense and not think it will rain tomorrow just because the Pope says so.

 

[RobedWithLight]

But Also:

 

[scapularkid8]

Cui comparabo te, vel cui assimilabo te,
filia Jerusalem ?
cui exæquabo te, et consolabor te,
virgo, filia Sion ?
magna est enim velut mare contritio tua :
quis medebitur tui ?

I wish I knew Latin so I could understand what you’re saying.

 

[LilyM]

I do not believe it is I that is being selective. I notice you did not comment on Mt 26:28, and thus have been selective in your response. Convenient. Please express your comments on the difference between the wording of the consecration, with references where possible. between the Novus Ordo and TLM.
It is a shame you do not think much of St. Thomas. No need for childish absurdities such as saying "Quit Deluding yourself ". I do not think it appropriate or Christian. Please refrain from immature comments and just cite what you claim and in that way we can learn from what it is you convey, or at least in what is you try to convey.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

I think incredibly highly of St Thomas, just that, as with all theologians, he (along with St Alphonsus and Denzinger) isn’t infallible on every point Those, be they five or eighty five, who DO agree with infallible doctrine and dogma on every point are more authoritative on those points. Their authority derives from their union with the Magisterium. That’s all I’m saying.

Now specifically as to the words of consecration. As Kirk and I have said, the Magisterium, and more specifically the Pope, cannot propose any rite or ritual which leads the faithful into impiety, as Trent held. This must of necessity include the order of the Mass or the words thereof, very specifically the words of consecration. Since an invalid or otherwise defective ritual of Mass most certainly would lead the faithful into impiety, if not downright heresy.

Possibly they may not be exactly the same words as in Matt 26:28, but then the form as stated in the TLM isn’t either - where does Matt 26:28 mention ‘mysterium fidei’, for example?

To be sure we can quibble all day about whether ‘pro multis’ should have been translated as it was, or where ‘mysterium fidei’ should be placed in the order of the mass, but you’re missing the camel while straining at the gnat here. If the Pope departs from the precise wording of Matt 26:28 then what of it? There are of a certainty perfectly valid Eastern rites that do so as well.

WHATEVER translation or form of words the consecration takes, as long as it is duly proposed and promulgated by the Magisterium and the Pope specifically, is of necessity both perfectly licit and valid. If priests of their own volition substitute something totally different THAT can render illicit or invalid the individual Mass or Masses celebrated by those particular priests.

 

[water]

The Mass a meal rather than a sacrifice.

Nope, it is still a Sacrifice.

Guitars and drums instead of chant. “Halloween Masses”

I love the piano and it doesn’t change my way of worshiping Him

No more confession.

Wrong! we have confession 6 days out of 7.

Laymen distributing communion.

I have no problem with that - The Church speaks!

Smashing of the images and statues.

Haven’t seen one doing that.

Barren churches.

Please visit St. Williams in Round Rock, TX

Meat on Fridays and all through Lent.

We have fish every Friday at Church.

Catholic is still the only Catholic.

 

[Rykell]

Many “traditionists” erroneously cite the clause at the end of Quo Primum to support their position against the NO and the right of successor Popes to promulgate the change of missal. What they don’t realize, since this is their only frame of reference, is that this was standard language concluding Papal Bulls as far back as Honorius III in 1226 (sorry, that’s as far back as I am able to find reference.) It was not an appendage solely used in Quo Primum.

Both latin and english are reprinted below. Similar wording, with minor variations was used throughout these centuries.

Let it not be in any way licit to anyone among men to infringe this page of our confirmation, or to contravene it with rash daring. If anyone however would presume to attempt this, let him know himself to have incurred the indignation of the Omnipotent God and of Blessed Peter and Paul, His Apostles.

Nulli ergo omnium hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae concessionis infringere vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attemptare praesumpserit, indignationum omnipotentis Dei et beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum ejus se noverit incursurum.

For deeper understanding, if one is truly interested in learning the truth, I offer these two links:

ewtn.com/library/answers/quopius.htm

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=97499

 

[RobedWithLight]

I don’t know what country on earth our friend carl comes from but here in the Philipiines, we still use the organ in our parish church, not drums or guitars, nor have I seen holy images or statues smashed.

Smashing of the images and statues

It is sweeping statements like these that tends to harm one’s faith in Jesus’ promises to His Church and likewise confuses those who while not yet a part of the Church, are contemplating upon joining her.

 

[gorman64]

Oh my goodness, you REALLY have NO idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Once again, popes cannot bind popes on matters of discipline, nor can councils. That’s a catholic BASIC, look it up.

Dear JKirkLVNV:

The doctrinal portion of a disciplinary decree is infallible. Truth does not change. A disciplinary decree has two parts; the doctrinal portion and the practical judgment. The latter is subject to error in judgment.

From Dogmatic Theology, Chapter II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.:

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain.

By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church.

The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. **When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

1. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.**
   Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.

The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.

1. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

 

[water]

It is sweeping statements like these that tends to harm one’s faith in Jesus’ promises to His Church and likewise confuses those who while not yet a part of the Church, are contemplating upon joining her.

Thanks for pointing this out - that is the reason why this very forum is just an experiment!

 

[tee_eff_em]

I wish I knew Latin so I could understand what you’re saying.

*Ego agnosco linguam Latinam, :yup: sed puto *carl36 non agnoscere. :nope:

tee

 

[gorman64]

It is sweeping statements like these that tends to harm one’s faith in Jesus’ promises to His Church and likewise confuses those who while not yet a part of the Church, are contemplating upon joining her.

Dear “robedwithlight”:

Well, it did happen in many places (in the USA I know it happened). The statues may not have been smashed in all cases…but they were removed and either sold or just trashed in some instances.

Do you deny that this happened?

Gorman

 

[BobP123]

WHATEVER translation or form of words the consecration takes, as long as it is duly proposed and promulgated by the Magisterium and the Pope specifically, is of necessity both perfectly licit and valid. If priests of their own volition substitute something totally different THAT can render illicit or invalid the individual Mass or Masses celebrated by those particular priests.

Who’s to say the ICEL didn’t do that for the priests already?

Granted the Pope promulgated the Latin Novus Ordo as valid (whether it violated Trent or not). However didn’t the Vatican (aka Magisterium) already admit that the vernacular words of consecration have not been approved? So what are we debating? Why are you still defending a Mass which has not been given the **full ** blessings of Rome as valid? If I be you and really wanted the Novus Ordo, I would demand a stop to the “for all” stuff immediately. It is your own Magisterium trying to rectify the situation but you’ll continue to justify your blind faith in something non-existent and blame us trads for it.

 

[BobP123]

Thanks for pointing this out - that is the reason why this very forum is just an experiment!

I believe that is a heresy.

 

[BobP123]

Dear “robedwithlight”:

Well, it did happen in many places (in the USA I know it happened). The statues may not have been smashed in all cases…but they were removed and either sold or just trashed in some instances.

Do you deny that this happened?

Gorman

Looks like robed had his lights out when the churches demolished communion rails, high altars, confessionals, etc. I guess that wasn’t any big deal.