Answering TMC - sedevacantists and substance of a sacrament

[Four_Marks]

From the Re: Sedevacantism and PIUS IX thread.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Four_Marks
They also changed the substance of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, something that the Church Herself has no right to do. Yes, they changed the form of a sacrament that Jesus Christ determined minutely (in specie); they dared to tamper with the words of Our Lord Himself.

So, please stop your remonstration regarding what you consider indifferent changes and look to the crucial innovations that were made.

All the very best,

Four_Marks

TMC wrote:“This is a charge I hear from sedevacantists all the time, but it makes no sense to me at all. The idea is, I suppose, that Christ gave us very specific words that had to be used exactly in the Mass, and that until very recently the Church used those words. But this is patently untrue.”

Four_Marks: Wrong. See below.

TMC wrote: “The Mass has never used the precise words that Christ used at the Last Supper, or at least has not since the very first years of the Church. We don’t even know what words Christ used with any precision at all.”

Four_Marks: Wrong. See below.

TMC wrote: “Christ spoke Aramaic, not Latin. The Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramais, so at a minimum there are two translation steps between Christ and the Latin form. But even setting that aside, the Gospels do not agree on what words Christ used. How can we say we know what words were correct when Matthew, Mark and Luke cannot agree? They also disagree on whether the bread or wine was consecrated first, and many other details of the Last Supper.”

Four_Marks: Wrong. See below. St. Mark who is one of the two sources of “for many” actually wrote in Greek, not Aramaic. The Church has determined the form for the Holy Eucharist based on the exact words of Christ, and that is all that matters.

There is a terrific flaw in your whole little thesis you’ve presented here. I’m talking about the substance of a sacrament, i.e., the sacrament of Holy Eucharist and whether the Church actually has the right to change the matter and form. The Church does not have the right to do this under any circumstances. You obviously do not know the difference between sacraments instituted in “specie” and in “genere”. The Holy Eucharist was instituted in specie and all theologians agree with this.

Catholic Encyclopedia (V. XIII. p. 299. 1913 ed.): “Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie ) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, eg. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.” (emphasis added)

The form of consecration for the Holy Eucharist was given to us minutely (exact words) by Christ. To argue against this is to argue against every theologian of the Church, i.e., the Church Herself!

You wished to see why the Church cannot tamper with the form of Holy Eucharist.

As regards the limitation of the rights and powers of the Pope and the Church there are at least four clear-cut pronouncements of the Magisterium, and all four are to be found in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum the last stop compendium of definitions and declarations relating to matters of faith and morals.

I’ll give you two of those pronouncements. (1) Pope St. Pius X in the letter Ex Quo, nono (Dec. 26, 1910) “(I)t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments.”

(2) The Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chap.2: “It (the Council) declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.”

Does the substitution of the words “for all men” in place of “for many” in the consecration form constitute a forbidden violation of the substance of the sacrament?

There has been a scholarly article written entitled: Has The Church The Right? It is available from: Catholic Research Institute P.O. Box 589 Veradale, WA 99037 USA

Regards,

Four_Marks

 

[Four_Marks]

The Catholic Research Institute’s online catalog can be found at: asisna.com/cri/

Regards,

Four_Marks

 

[cam100]

I’m talking about the substance of a sacrament, i.e., the sacrament of Holy Eucharist and whether the Church actually has the right to change the matter and form. The Church does not have the right to do this under any circumstances.

As you said, the Church cannot change the matter and form of a sacrament. But some questions arise:

Who has the authority to define exactly WHAT constitutes this unchangeable matter and form? (In other words, if Christ set the matter and form, what is the authoritative source that can tell us what that matter and form are?)

Who has the authority to determine if the matter and form being used in a specific case are the same as the matter and form instituted by Christ?

 

[Four_Marks]

As you said, the Church cannot change the matter and form of a sacrament. But some questions arise:

Who has the authority to define exactly WHAT constitutes this unchangeable matter and form? (In other words, if Christ set the matter and form, what is the authoritative source that can tell us what that matter and form are?)

Who has the authority to determine if the matter and form being used in a specific case are the same as the matter and form instituted by Christ?

Dear cam100,

Very good questions. Answer: The Church, in its teachings on these matters, has the sole authority to decide these matters. As I’m sure you’ll appreciate, I do not have permission from the author or the publisher to re-print the above mentioned paper: (Has The Church The Right) in full, and that is why I, specifically, gave the reader the information in order to obtain it (if they have sufficient interest in this serious matter).

However, I will touch upon your enquiry (it is fully explained in the paper).

Regarding the consecration of the wine.

From the paper: "What has the Church said on this matter? It goes without saying that She has never defined what words are absolutely essential for consecrating the wine, for otherwise the controversy would have been settled. Certain clear indications, however, as to what is “the mind of the Church” have been given to us; for example, the **decree of the Council of Florence **cited above. And the mind of the Church is that, in the absence of an actual de fide definition, the entire form (and not just the words: ’ This is the Chalice of My Blood ') must be treated as though it is of the substance of the Sacrament." (emphasis added)

Cam, the paper treats this matter thoroughly. It will answer all of your questions and even more. I’d suggest that you acquire the paper. I don’t think you’ll have any questions once you’ve thoroughly read it. The author, as will be plainly seen, cites popes, apostolic constitutions, Councils (Trent etc.), letters of the popes, theologians, the Catholic Encyclopedia, *De Defectibus etc. * extensively to back up his conclusions.

Regards,
Four_Marks

 

[SFD]

As you said, the Church cannot change the matter and form of a sacrament. But some questions arise:

Who has the authority to define exactly WHAT constitutes this unchangeable matter and form? (In other words, if Christ set the matter and form, what is the authoritative source that can tell us what that matter and form are?)

Who has the authority to determine if the matter and form being used in a specific case are the same as the matter and form instituted by Christ?

Cam100,

See Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII, 1947, for some insight into this question. He made a determination (he did not change anything) as to the exact matter and form of the Sacraments of Ordination of a Priest and Bishop. These are very involved ceremonies and there was a question as to what constituted the actual matter and form of these sacraments of order.

SFD

 

[Four_Marks]

Cam100,

See Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII, 1947, for some insight into this question. He made a determination (he did not change anything) as to the exact matter and form of the Sacraments of Ordination of a Priest and Bishop. These are very involved ceremonies and there was a question as to what constituted the actual matter and form of these sacraments of order.

SFD

Dear SFD,

As you will appreciate, the author used the words of Pope Pius XII under the heading: “Definition of Pius XII”, in the paper.

I’d like to encourage those interested, to acquire this paper in order to gain a correct and clear understanding of the matter at hand.

Your assistance, though, is much appreciated and welcomed!

 

[cam100]

Very good questions. Answer: The Church, in its teachings on these matters, has the sole authority to decide these matters. As I’m sure you’ll appreciate, I do not have permission from the author or the publisher to re-print the above mentioned paper: (Has The Church The Right) in full, and that is why I, specifically, gave the reader the information in order to obtain it (if they have sufficient interest in this serious matter).

See Sacramentum Ordinis, Pope Pius XII, 1947, for some insight into this question. He made a determination (he did not change anything) as to the exact matter and form of the Sacraments of Ordination of a Priest and Bishop. These are very involved ceremonies and there was a question as to what constituted the actual matter and form of these sacraments of order.

I appreciate that you both provided some sources of more informtion on this. I haven’t read the paper “Has The Church The Right”, but I’ll order it. I have read Sacramentum Ordinis, so I’ll base my comment around that.

Pope Pius XII defined the words that must be used for valid form in ordinations. Now, did Christ use those exact words, and has every bishop of every Catholic rite used those exact words since the time of Christ? I don’t think that’s what he is saying, rather he is giving us words that convey a meaning which is essential to convey. One obvious example of this is that the first ordinations weren’t in Latin, so the Latin words given by Pius XII are words that convey the same meaning in Latin as did the original words in another language.

Here is my point: A pope can provide a set of words to use in a sacrament, and he alone can determine if they mean the same as the essential meaning that must be conveyed, and has always been conveyed. So, one cannot challenge the legitamacy of a sacrament thus promulgated, and one cannot challenge the legitamacy of a pope BECAUSE he promulgated it, for that involves a judgement reserved to the pope alone.

Now, IF it is first proven that it was NOT a valid pope who changed these words, this question becomes legitimate. But the validity of the papal claimant maing the change must FIRST be proven.

 

[TMC]

The form of consecration for the Holy Eucharist was given to us minutely (exact words) by Christ. To argue against this is to argue against every theologian of the Church, i.e., the Church Herself!

Can you tell me where and when He did this? Because the three Gospel accounts differ.

My understanding of in specie is that the Church cannot change the substance or the form of the Sacrament. That obviously cannot mean that the Church cannot change any detail whatsoever, because the Mass has changed many times over time and the Church has consisently recognized the validity of the Sacraments of other rites, including, for example, rites that use leavened bread.

What in specie means is that no change in the essential form and matter of a Sacrament can be made. This is why, for example, the liturgy can be translated into other languages and other changes made that do not alter the essential matter or form of the Sacrament. The formulae used can be changed as long as it remains true to the required form.

Your objection, I take it, is that changing the translation of pro multis from “for many” to “for all”? I think neither translation is technically accurate, but I know that the Church has said that this respects the essential form required for the Sacrament. There are other differing Words of Institution in different rites, and at least one rite has no explict Words of Institution at all. Do you believe that none of their Sacraments are valid?

 

[mgrfin]

The Catholic Research Institute’s online catalog can be found at: asisna.com/cri/

Regards,

Four_Marks

That site is the home of Patrick Henry Omlor, an arch conservative Catholic, part of the SV crowd.

I don’t know whether he has been accused of heresy yet. His credentials include a degree in mathematics.

He is just another one of those guys on the extreme right of the Church, unhappy with the changes that have gone on in the Church since Vatican 2.

I am sure he attacks the liturgical changes that have gone on in the Church over the past 40 years. I suspect he believes that the changes invalidate our current Mass.

Some people have nothing better to do than attack the hierarchy and the Roman Pontiff.

peace

 

[Four_Marks]

I appreciate that you both provided some sources of more informtion on this. I haven’t read the paper “Has The Church The Right”, but I’ll order it. I have read Sacramentum Ordinis, so I’ll base my comment around that.

Pope Pius XII defined the words that must be used for valid form in ordinations. Now, did Christ use those exact words, and has every bishop of every Catholic rite used those exact words since the time of Christ? I don’t think that’s what he is saying, rather he is giving us words that convey a meaning which is essential to convey. One obvious example of this is that the first ordinations weren’t in Latin, so the Latin words given by Pius XII are words that convey the same meaning in Latin as did the original words in another language.

Here is my point: A pope can provide a set of words to use in a sacrament, and he alone can determine if they mean the same as the essential meaning that must be conveyed, and has always been conveyed. So, one cannot challenge the legitamacy of a sacrament thus promulgated, and one cannot challenge the legitamacy of a pope BECAUSE he promulgated it, for that involves a judgement reserved to the pope alone.

Now, IF it is first proven that it was NOT a valid pope who changed these words, this question becomes legitimate. But the validity of the papal claimant maing the change must FIRST be proven.

Cam,

Thanks for responding. The following, part of which was in my original post, should answer your question in the interim period of acquiring the paper. Remember: we are speaking of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist.

“Catholic Encyclopedia (V. XIII. p. 299. 1913 ed.): “Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites:** for some sacraments (e.g. baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie ) the matter and form:** for others** He determined only in a general way (in genere) **that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the **Church the power to determine **whatever He had not determined, eg. **to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.” **(emphasis added)”

I’m adding to the paragraph above now . . .

Omlor: “Since the Holy Eucharist was instituted in specie (and all theologians agree upon this), Our Lord Himself at the Last Supper having specified the exact words of the form, there was absolutely nothing left to the Church to determine in this respect.”

I’m glad that you are taking this serious enough to order the paper. It was authored by a gentleman named Patrick Henry Omlor. He also wrote a thesis entitled: Questioning the Validity of the Masses using The New All-English Canon in 1968 (?). He is well known in traditionalist circles for his erudition in the treatment of these matters. It is also well known in traditionalist circles that his thesis has never been sucessfully refuted.

Take care & God bless!

 

[Four_Marks]

That site is the home of Patrick Henry Omlor, an arch conservative Catholic, part of the SV crowd.

I don’t know whether he has been accused of heresy yet. His credentials include a degree in mathematics.

He is just another one of those guys on the extreme right of the Church, unhappy with the changes that have gone on in the Church since Vatican 2.

I am sure he attacks the liturgical changes that have gone on in the Church over the past 40 years. I suspect he believes that the changes invalidate our current Mass.

Some people have nothing better to do than attack the hierarchy and the Roman Pontiff.

peace

mgrfin: “That site is the home of Patrick Henry Omlor, an arch conservative Catholic, part of the SV crowd.”

Er… wrong.

Listen, I have no problem with your unceasing attacks. You see, God endowed us with an intellect, and your attacks just serve to arouse the God-given curiosity of those Catholics who recognize massive problems in the post VII scenario, and therefore are seeking answers to explain this crisis. What they’ll get from Omlor, is erudite responses from a Catholic who truly knows his Catholic Faith.

Regards,
Four_Marks

 

[mgrfin]

Four_Marks;QUOTE:

Omlor is primarily a mathematician, and an infamous SVD person. He should be taken on face value of not being an authority on Dogmatic Theology. He may not be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Maybe you should research the matter with St. Thomas Aquinas.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

You guys speak your own lingo: What is post VII scenario"?

peace

 

[Four_Marks]

Can you tell me where and when He did this? Because the three Gospel accounts differ.

My understanding of in specie is that the Church cannot change the substance or the form of the Sacrament. That obviously cannot mean that the Church cannot change any detail whatsoever, because the Mass has changed many times over time and the Church has consisently recognized the validity of the Sacraments of other rites, including, for example, rites that use leavened bread.

What in specie means is that no change in the essential form and matter of a Sacrament can be made. This is why, for example, the liturgy can be translated into other languages and other changes made that do not alter the essential matter or form of the Sacrament. The formulae used can be changed as long as it remains true to the required form.

Your objection, I take it, is that changing the translation of pro multis from “for many” to “for all”? I think neither translation is technically accurate, but I know that the Church has said that this respects the essential form required for the Sacrament. There are other differing Words of Institution in different rites, and at least one rite has no explict Words of Institution at all. Do you believe that none of their Sacraments are valid?

Dear TMC,

First a small point. No, the Gospels don’t differ* per se*. Some accounts are incomplete as opposed to others, but there are 2 sources for “for many”. Can you see the distinction? In other words, three reporters are going to present three eye-witness accounts. Some reports may include more information than others.

Please just order the paper. I think it is a pittance that they are asking for?

I’ll leave you with this straight from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

“With regard to the consecration of the wine,” teaches the Catechism of the Council of Trent "it is necessary … that the priest know and understand well its form. We are, then, firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: ’ 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. ’ … but of this form no one can doubt." (emphasis added)

TMC wrote: "Your objection, I take it, is that changing the translation of pro multis from “for many” to “for all”? I think neither translation is technically accurate, but I know that the Church has said that this respects the essential form required for the Sacrament.

Well, you would** be in opposition **to what the Church holds then, as regards not believing the above form from Trent.

TMC wrote: “There are other differing Words of Institution in different rites, and at least one rite has no explict Words of Institution at all. Do you believe that none of their Sacraments are valid?”

No. I believe that where ever there is correct matter and form (as well as other requisite conditions), there is validity. Omlor covers other rites in his other writings. After you’ve read his paper, Has The Church The Right, we can go in depth on this issue.

Kind Regards,

Four_Marks

 

[Four_Marks]

Four_Marks;QUOTE:

mgrfin wrote: "Omlor is primarily a mathematician, and an infamous SVD person. He should be taken on face value of not being an authority on Dogmatic Theology.

He may not be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Maybe you should research the matter with St. Thomas Aquinas.

peace"

Sorry sir, but you have it completely incorrect. Thank you for your opinion, but it is falling on deaf ears because I know the truth of the matter. You are making rash speculations about a Catholic, and whether you can see it yourself or not, it does not stop the reader of this thread from wondering why you’ve launched a totally inept and substanceless attack on somebody who you have virtually zero information. What is your motivation? Are you scared of Omlor and the truth? I cannot work out why you are attacking him, rather than addressing his argument — that is all that matters, i.e., whether what he writes is true.

Pax P.S. Incidentally, Omlor cites St Thomas Aquinas extensively in his works.

 

[mgrfin]

I am stating my opinion about his credentials, which are nil, and I am saying where he is coming from, the extreme, extreme right of the Church. He may be part of the sedevacantist crowd, which is totally suspect.

 

[mgrfin]

As you said, the Church cannot change the matter and form of a sacrament. But some questions arise:

Who has the authority to define exactly WHAT constitutes this unchangeable matter and form? (In other words, if Christ set the matter and form, what is the authoritative source that can tell us what that matter and form are?)

Who has the authority to determine if the matter and form being used in a specific case are the same as the matter and form instituted by Christ?

For starters, the Church does - the Roman Pontiff, or a General Council of the Church. This might refer to the Council of Trent, or Vatican I, or Vatican 2, with intervening popes between.

But a lot on these threads don’t accept Vatican 2, or anything it said or did, and don’t accept the action of various Pontiffs, from Pio Nono through Benedict XVI.

 

[Four_Marks]

Four_Marks;3210772:

I am stating my opinion about his credentials, which are nil, and I am saying where he is coming from, the extreme, extreme right of the Church. He may be part of the sedevacantist crowd, which is totally suspect.

Exactly! You are merely stating your personal (biased) opinion.

I’m stating mine:

"Sorry sir, but you have it completely incorrect. Thank you for your opinion, but it is falling on deaf ears because I know the truth of the matter. You are making rash speculations about a Catholic, and whether you can see it yourself or not, it does not stop the reader of this thread from wondering why you’ve launched a totally inept and substanceless attack on somebody who you have virtually zero information. What is your motivation? Are you scared of Omlor and the truth? I cannot work out why you are attacking him, rather than addressing his argument — that is all that matters, i.e., whether what he writes is true.

Pax P.S. Incidentally, Omlor cites St Thomas Aquinas extensively in his works."

 

[Four_Marks]

For starters, the Church does - the Roman Pontiff, or a General Council of the Church. This might refer to the Council of Trent, or Vatican I, or Vatican 2, with intervening popes between.

But a lot on these threads don’t accept Vatican 2, or anything it said or did, and don’t accept the action of various Pontiffs, from Pio Nono through Benedict XVI.

For finishers, my post also states that the Church decides.

No, it has nothing to do with VII. It has to do with the Council of Trent and other Councils, popes, **all of the theologians **etc. etc. — as indicated in more than one of my previous posts.

Ergo, whether one accepts VII, or not, is completely irrelevant to this issue.

Cheerio!

Four_Marks

 

[mgrfin]

Exactly! You are merely stating your personal opinion.

QUOTE]

He is stating his own personal opinion about theology, and it is baiased, right to the right.

You confirm what I already said. He has no theological qualifications or credentials. He is a mathematician.

His theological opinion carries no weight.

Since this thread is going nowhere, shouldn’t we ask the Forum Administrator to close it?

peace