Consecration of the Eucharist

[itsjustdave1988]

Pro omnibus is only this pope’s Latin of the same verses in his encyclical.** … **He speaks as a theologian on this section, not an infallible defintion of a new bible.

Rubbish. This is a papal encyclical. Within it, he speaks as the Vicar of Christ, whether or not he defines infallible dogma.

Pope Pius XII:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, … these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” (Humani Generis, 20)

Furthermore, he speaks as supreme legislator when he approves the liturgy, including the vernacular translations.

The Church has condemned the proposition that approved ecclesiastical disciplines can be harmful or dangerous to the faithful.

Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

Consequently, whether you realize it or not, God protects the pope from approving of consecration formulas which can be harmful or dangerous to the faithful. You may believe it to be an imprudent formula, or perhaps not the best way of wording it catechetically speaking. That’s fine if you have such an opinion. However, this consecration formula was decided upon by the Vicar of Christ and it cannot, no matter how much you dislike it, be harmful or dangerous to the faithful.

Catholics are bound to give their assent to the judgements and decrees of the pope, even if such is merely related to the general good of the Church in matters of discipline.

Pope Pius IX:

we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how** opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.**

(Pius IX, Encyclical *Quanta Cura *(1864), Denzinger 1698)

 

[Minimus]

itsjustdave1988:

Rubbish. This is a papal encyclical. Within it, he speaks as the Vicar of Christ, whether or not he defines infallible dogma.

Pope Pius XII:
Furthermore, he speaks as supreme legislator when he approves the liturgy, including the vernacular translations.

The Church has condemned the proposition that approved ecclesiastical disciplines can be harmful or dangerous to the faithful…

A truly remarkable argument, which surely helps explain the Reformation. There is no gospel passage, whether in the best Greek texts or in St Jerome, that asserts the Savior said His blood was shed “for all.” Every argument advanced for that particular translation is utter rubbish until such time that a more authoritative text can be found.

And to argue that a Pope can alter Holy Writ by asserting that he says he can, is blather. The English text, supposing we are to be forced to use it, needs to be fixed.