About “pro multis”

[bear06]

This whole conversation, of course, point out why we are not to appeal to an ecumenical council as if it were an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff. Hmmm…Where have I hear this before?

 

[USMC]

USMC - I cannot BELIEVE that you are arguing against the very clear words of the Catechism of Pope Pius X. Obviously according to your logic the sainted Pius himself was a heretic! Guilty of grave sin and of allowing error to be taught by the Church! You can’t seriously accept this.

I haven’t argued against the teachings of the Catechism of Pius X. I have only asked Dave the simple question of whether or not he believes the teaching of the infallible dogmatic council of Florence.

I would be more than happy to answer any question posed to me. HOWEVER, I will not answer the questions put forth to me until those arguing against me answer mine.

My questions were very simple. And I will ask them again for anyone to answer (but specifically I want to hear itsjustdave’s answer). Here are the questions:

1.) Do you believe the clear and unambiguous teachings of the council of Forence, which teaches:

The Council of Florence, 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.”

2.) Do you believe that the Anaphora Rite of Addai and Mari, which has no words of consecration, yet was approved by Rome, is a valid Mass?

Again, I will answer any question posed to me after those who question me answer my two simple questions. Fair enough?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

In your anger and name-calling …

sigh I’m neither angry, nor have I called you any names. I was joking with regard to Air Force guys being smarter than Marines, I hope you know. It very much depends upon the Marine and upon the Air Force guy.

(BTW, I am not a member of the SSPX. I attend Mass at an SSPX Church from time to time (it has actually been a while), but am not a member of the group. I’m sure you will ignore this statement (which I have told you several times in the past), since, in order to attempt to discredit my points, you would like to pretend that I am a member of that vilified group who is keeping the faith in the midst of the current crisis.)

I haven’t ignored this assertion of yours, nor do I care. I’ve not claimed you were a member of the SSPX, so it appears again your exegetical skills are wanting. Nonetheless, it doesn’t have any relevance upon the evident Lefebvrist bias you consistently tend toward.

For instance, you claim the approved ecclesiastical liturgical norms of the Catholic Church make the Sacrament invalid. That’s enough evidence of Lefebvrism to convince me of your bias, a bias which is contrary to Pius VI’s condemnation in Auctorem Fidei, which affirms that such ecclesiastial discipline approved by the Church can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, the contrary Jansenist (and Lefebvrist) claims, notwithstanding. (cf. Disciplinary Infallibility?)

 

[AlexV]

Bishop Tod Brown’s Halloween Masses are approved by the diocese he is ordinary over. He’s the ecclesiastical arbiter of liturgy for his territory. Approved by the pope. In fact, appointed by John Paul II to be the shepherd of his territory.

They’ve been celebrated every year since 2000…with the bishop’s consent and approval. They’re part of the officially approved liturgy offered by the diocese.

The “approved ecclesistical liturgical norms” in Orange allow for the Halloween Mass.

The Church has approved the INCORRECT translation of “Christ who only was sinless reconciled sinners to the Father” for “Christus innocens Patri reconciliavit peccatores”, which does NOT say “only” anywhere. The official American translation of the Easter Sequence contains an implicit denial of the sinlessness of Mary.

The Church can indeed prescribe error.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

1.) … the clear and unambiguous teachings of the council of Forence, which teaches:

The Council of Florence, Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: …

Hmmmm…the Council of Florence was a 15th century council. Pius V was a 16th century pope. I think perhaps you’re a bit confused.

 

[USMC]

Hmmmm…the Council of Florence was a 15th century council. Pius V was a 16th century pope. I think perhaps you’re a bit confused.

There were two quotes I was going to use, and I mistakenly posted the wrong source. The quote I posted was from De Defectibus of Pius V, not the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV. Sorry about that. Let me post both quotes now.

The first quote is from Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence, which gives us the words of consecration; the second quote is from De Defectibus of Pius V:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, “Cantate Domino”: “… The form of words which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord’s Body and Blood… It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: 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.”(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581)

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.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…The “approved ecclesistical liturgical norms” in Orange allow for the Halloween Mass.

Now you’re just building strawmen, and everyone here knows it. Not very convincing.

Before you attempt to build another poor caricature of Catholic theology on the matter, perhaps you should study it more thoroughly…

See 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Note, this encyclopedia was written during the papacy of Pope St. Pius X.

Here’s an excerpt…

                          **Disciplinary Infallibility**] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises                                on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide **unanimously** in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

According to a 1908 text, P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

                                              “The Church is** infallible in her general discipline**. **By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church.** Such things would be those which concern either external worship, **such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .**

**“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
**

So, while this doesn’t apply toward the norms established by any one diocesan bishop for his diocese, it does apply to the GENERAL norms, such as the Code of Canon Laws, and to the Roman Missal approved and promulgated by the Roman Pontiff.

This is based upon Pius VI, Auctorum Fidei, who condemned the contrary Jansenist proposition that the the “the discipline established and approved by the Church” can be considered “dangerous and harmful” to the faithful." (Auctorum Fidei, 78)

Your argument isn’t with me, but with Pius VI it seems.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Consider also the follow popes, who confirmed Pius VI’s teaching…

According to Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832):

the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect

Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), who condemns the proposition that…

"… categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church… [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… these men [who make such claims] were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution *Auctorem fidei *

(published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794)… do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?"
And yet according to the Msgr Lefebvre and those who cling to his erroneous bias:

“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules…bears within it a poison harmful to the faith” (Marcel Levebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29)

Forgive me, but a don’t agree that it is truly traditional of Catholics to assert propositions which directly oppose the condemnations of an 18th century pope.

 

[AlexV]

I stand by what I posted. Your arrogance notwithstanding. I have a far more extensive knowledge of Catholic history, liturgy, and theology than your insulting comments would admit.

If you’d bother to read the actual Latin typical edition of the Missal, you’d note that since the 1970 Missale Romanum, PLENTY of important rubrical norms are explicitly left to local diocesan bishops.

Those norms, once approved by the bishops, become equal parts of the disciplinary norms you’re so fond of posting about with your little stable of documents to quote. Nowhere in your wonderful little florilgeium of quotes is there anything that says, “Wait, we just mean Roman rubrics…not the rubrics of local bishops.” (Then again, when these wonderful documents were written, local bishops weren’t allowed to do what is allowed in 2006).

You also need an education on infallibility. Auctorem fidei is not an infallible pronouncement. After all, it contradicts De Defectibus. That sort of thing bothers people whose education in liturgy and theology consists of document culling out of historical context.

 

[bear06]

After all, it contradicts De Defectibus.

Please. This kind of thing is usually said by someone who apparently thinks he has been bestowed the authority of interpretaion of documents. Mysterium Fidei affirms that nothing essential has been changed.

We have some who say the words cannot be changed. We have a document that says the words cannot be changed if the meaning has changed. We have a pope that says that the meaning hasn’t changed. Who has the authority to interpret texts? Oh yes, it’s the POPE! In the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI issued on April 3, 1969, the Holy Father says that the substance of the Mass has been preserved. Mysterium Fidei also reaffirms that the same doctrine that has always been taught is still taught.

I’m sure that you’ll be saying it’s not infallible. Unfortunatley, this mantra doesn’t always mean that the documents are incorrect or that they hold no authority.

On the one hand, you are indicating that this would invalidate the Eucharist. You would then have to say that the Magisterium is contradicting Tradition. This can’t happen so you would be wrong if this is your claim. It’s fairly simple no matter how learned you think you are.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I would just like to state for the record that I buy AlexV’s arguments. He is quite convincing.

AlexV - 1
Document trawlers - 0

Truth victorious again.

 

[USMC]

On the one hand, you are indicating that this would invalidate the Eucharist. You would then have to say that the Magisterium is contradicting Tradition. This can’t happen so you would be wrong if this is your claim. It’s fairly simple no matter how learned you think you are.

Bear,

Are you willing to answer my second question (posted above)? Either Dave is not going to answer, or else he is scouring the internet trying to find some kind of explanation. I will post the question again now.

Question # 2.) Do you believe that the Anaphora Rite of Addai and Mari, which has no words of consecration, yet was approved by Rome, is a valid Mass?

This “mass” which has no words of consecration at all - NONE - was approved, as valid, by both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratizinger. Is it valid?

 

[boppysbud]

So are we to assume that Jesus only died for SOME people, but not all?

Are we now to become Calvinists? How are we to know who makes it to the predestined, the so called “elect” and who is just out of luck no matter what they do?

When I left Protestantism I THOUGHT I was leaving Calvinism far behind. Was I mistaken?

If God has already chosen who Jesus died for, and who he did not die for, then why even fool with baptism and going to Mass everything is already “fixed” no matter what we do or do not do.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Are you willing to answer my second question (posted above)? Either Dave is not going to answer…

Sorry USMC, but you aren’t the center of my world. I have other conversations going on, many of which do not involve people in cyberspace.

I can address your question when my time permits. However, I was under the impression this thread was about “pro multis”, no?

 

[AlexV]

My point remains. Liturgically, SINCE the 1970 Missal and its translation into the vernacular, it’s no longer complete just to talk about those MYTHICAL Roman rubrics…I say MYTHICAL because they’re used in a handful of places compared to the places using the vernacular.

Local bishops and their conferences have tremendous authority over the liturgy, as noted in the 1970 Missal in various places.

And so, for example, we come back to the Easter Sequence. The Latin is very nice. Christus innocens Patri reconciliavit peccatores. That means The innocent Christ reconciled sinners to the Father. You don’t need to be a pope or bishop to know that.

But the ICEL translation reads Christ who only was sinless reconciled sinners to the Father.

Note they added something. Note what they added is false. Note the addition implicitly denies the sinlessness of Mary.

That’s an official translation. A liturgical text. Supposedly immune from all possible defect that would impact our faith.

Sorry, try again. Though I’ve love to see someone twist and contort that translation and show how stupid all of us are who happen to know Latin quite well and know that translation is not only wrong, period, but quite potentially damaging to the faith. Singing that verse year after year on the holiest day in the calendar…

 

[bear06]

Bear,

Are you willing to answer my second question (posted above)? Either Dave is not going to answer, or else he is scouring the internet trying to find some kind of explanation. I will post the question again now.

Question # 2.) Do you believe that the Anaphora Rite of Addai and Mari, which has no words of consecration, yet was approved by Rome, is a valid Mass?

This “mass” which has no words of consecration at all - NONE - was approved, as valid, by both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratizinger. Is it valid?

OK, so again, are you saying the Church is contradicting Tradition when it says that the Institution is found in this rite? What in the Anaphora Rite of Addai and Mari contradicts this:

If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament.

Since trawling is the word of the day, I don’t often go trawling for the obscure to condemn the “post-conciliar” Church so you’ll have to help me out here?. What in the Addai and Mari Rite doesn’t signify what we believe in our canons?

 

[AlexV]

The rite in question doesn’t have a Consecration formula. The little quotes people are parading out to do their command performance clearly imply that there actually IS a Consecration formula to confect the Sacrament validly.

The Addai and Mari Anaphora question isn’t “obscure”. It touches on some of the fundamental issues of the Catholic faith.

But my translation issue…related to Pro Multis as an example of an incorrect translation that was either the product of stupidity, incompetence, or deliberate obfuscation…is used throughout the US every Easter.

 

[LilyM]

My point remains. Liturgically, SINCE the 1970 Missal and its translation into the vernacular, it’s no longer complete just to talk about those MYTHICAL Roman rubrics…I say MYTHICAL because they’re used in a handful of places compared to the places using the vernacular.

Local bishops and their conferences have tremendous authority over the liturgy, as noted in the 1970 Missal in various places.

And so, for example, we come back to the Easter Sequence. The Latin is very nice. Christus innocens Patri reconciliavit peccatores. That means The innocent Christ reconciled sinners to the Father. You don’t need to be a pope or bishop to know that.

But the ICEL translation reads Christ who only was sinless reconciled sinners to the Father.

Note they added something. Note what they added is false. Note the addition implicitly denies the sinlessness of Mary.

That’s an official translation. A liturgical text. Supposedly immune from all possible defect that would impact our faith.

Sorry, try again. Though I’ve love to see someone twist and contort that translation and show how stupid all of us are who happen to know Latin quite well and know that translation is not only wrong, period, but quite potentially damaging to the faith. Singing that verse year after year on the holiest day in the calendar…

Alex, are you seriously suggesting that people are going to assume that Mary was a sinner because of ONE LINE in ONE SEQUENCE that is said only once a year?

OF course they’re not! Never ever heard that line quoted as evidence by anyone arguing that she was a sinner. Most people are probably totally unaware that the line even says that.

I do appreciate that the pro multis issue is very different.

I can only assert that the Holy Spirit, continues to protect the church from teaching error or leading the faithful into it. The terrible personal lives of some of the Popes didn’t create erroneous belief among Catholics. Bad liturgy doesn’t and won’t either.

Social mores that have only indirectly to do with liturgy, religion or Catholicism specifically may.

 

[AlexV]

It’s amazing how some people are willing to allow significant errors to remain in the translations of liturgical texts.

That mistranslation, as I stated, was either stupidity…the ICEL folks didn’t know Latin very well (that’s probably the case), or deliberate obfuscation of doctrine.

It doesn’t really matter which it was. What matters is it’s unacceptable because it’s wrong. And you don’t need to be a bishop to say it’s wrong. Objectively, it’s a mistranslation, with disturbing implications.

But perhaps since the bishops approved it, and Rome confirmed the approval…it’s just fine and dandy.

But see all the problems the vernacular raises? Just do the Sequence in Latin and you avoid the error.

 

[bear06]

The rite in question doesn’t have a Consecration formula. The little quotes people are parading out to do their command performance clearly imply that there actually IS a Consecration formula to confect the Sacrament validly.

Well, this would be according to you, wouldn’t it. Have you read the documents on this issue? BTW, I don’t believe anyone quoted anything on this issue so I’d have to assume you’re talking about the Vatican.

The Addai and Mari Anaphora question isn’t “obscure”. It touches on some of the fundamental issues of the Catholic faith.

Are you saying that the Vatican is contradicting Tradition?

But my translation issue…related to Pro Multis as an example of an incorrect translation that was either the product of stupidity, incompetence, or deliberate obfuscation…is used throughout the US every Easter.

Again, we aren’t going to agree on the pro multis issue. You knew this already because it’s been discussed to death. Go ahead and believe whatever you’d like and we’ll think what we like about your theories and you can think what you like about ours. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is stupid or far less scholarly anyway according to you. It’s clear that think you’re far more scholarly or honest than the Magisterium. Check. It’s too bad you just don’t say what you mean so we can be done with this in a few posts instead of dragging this on and on for almost 100. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if they do change the translation because thn you’d have to rant about something else. Then we can just disagree with you on that and move on. What a vicious circle and yet, we’ve yet to hear what you hope to accomplish.