Aside from the ICEL, if English changes enough, that wouldn’t be all that extreme. But the Pope himself probably wouldn’t change a particular vernacular.
This is so full of misinformation and false generalizations I do not know where to start.
He always rants so, when it comes to the EF.
Jesus did not “rail against ritual”; this is a constant misunderstanding here at the CAF. How could Jesus rail against the ritual sacrificial cultic worship of Ancient Israel if His own Father dictated these norms to Moses? How could God contradict Himself, especially since these rituals all found their fulfillment in Jesus’ perfect sacrifice?
I agree. The Old Medic and Will S appear to be arguing that no change whatsoever can occur in the words of institution, or the consecration is invalid. I was also arguing this point with another member a few weeks back. Here is what the relevant part of De Defectibus says:
This is misinformation. The Mass is living liturgy, and constantly changed, either if you view as it is defined, or if you view as it is seen from the pew.
I would rather stop the “innovating and changing” and return to the ancient liturgical worship.
The words of consecration, the very words that effect the Sacrament, are a matter of faith, and as such, they are subject to the pope’s charism of infallibility. You see, the very example you gave, in its sheer silliness, implies a different question than the one that you actually articulated.
I’ll agree that it might be grammatically defective but not exactly for that reason. “Mysterium (fidei)” is neuter and thus the “hic” and the “calix” and the “sanquinis” and the following “qui” don’t quite match in gender. But that itself hints that the “mysterium fidei” is an afterthought, though a necessary one as deemed by the Church. (The hint is not at all evident in the English and perhaps one of the many reasons why the Old Mass is not allowed to be translated.)
Well, while technically true, this wasn’t because early Christians didn’t want churches, it was because Christianity was ILLEGAL and had to be practiced underground! Of COURSE there were no churches, since to build one would have meant death. You don’t see the first churches until the legalization of Christianity by Constantine in 325 AD. Even in these home worship spaces, special decorations were created and used.
The Old Medic has a good synopsis on Jesus’ view of the Pharisees. Reading the litany of all the “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocites” in Matthew 23, there’s none which mention the “application of priestly practices to the lay faithful.”
*CONSTITUTION *
That doesn’t say anything at all about the words of consecration, and the words of consecration are not one of the things mentioned as being in need of revision in the rest of Sacrosantum Concilium.
No kidding, Professor. The Constitution certainly did not list every specific change that needed to be made. No one claimed that it did. It called for a complete revision, and that is what followed. The Constitution laid down general principles for revision, and, alas, left the rest to the committee.
Nowhere did it say, “Change various parts of the Mass, EXCEPT the words of consecration.” Heck, there were additional eucharistic prayers created, even though those were not specifically called, for either.He was not referring to cultic sacrificial worship. Please do not twist Jesus’ words to say something that He did not say. His own Father dictated the norms for Ancient Israel’s form of cultic sacrificial worship. The Pharisees misapplied the ritual practices reserved to the priests and tried to force them on the faithful.
Then the council did not authorize a change in the words of consecration. Calling for a general revision of the Mass doesn’t mean authorization to make any change whatsoever. It would have not been legitimate for the consilium to replace the Mass with a Baptist revival service, for example.
But they didn’t replace the Mass with a Baptist revival service, so that’s another absurd comparison. Who said the words of consecration could not be changed?
The words can change but up to a point. For example, if the Pope or a commission were to change the words “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” to “Haec est enim caro mea” (For this is My Flesh), I’m sure a lot of theologians would be all over that one and advise the Pope accordingly. It’s true that the Pope can ignore all his advisors but how sustainable would the change be? The next Pope can easily revert back to the Corpus formula without much problem from the theologians.