B
BobP123
Guest
This is nonsense. If one were to add, for example, “for only those of German descent,” you bet that would invalidate the Mass.
- Status
A
AJV
Guest
Then this is an excellent opportunity to find out!
and, if you have the time, you can Google him and you’ll find out many interesting things. He was friends with quite a few notables (even ordained a deacon by Ridley) and because of his travels was exposed to many of the Protestant centers of the time. A short account from Wikipedia.Alas, Luther and Cranmer, nefarious as they were, are overused among the many examples of Reformers. Never does one come across Bucer’s Strasbourg liturgy or Ridley’s sermons in the polemics. Only Luther and Cranmer.
As for the the NO, perhaps it would be more correct to say that that is the meaning of the English translation?
J
Jo_Benedict
Guest
This thread has nothing to do with sedevacantism. Please keep the conversation on track. If you wish to discuss sedevacantism, start a new thread. Thanks!“Some of the documents have factual errors. And a lot of their stuff concerns VERY one sided stuff.”
Could you give an example please?
L
LilyM
Guest
For one thing the words ‘mystery of faith’ were absolutely not the words of Our Lord! Why mix them in with His own? That’s a perfectly good reason right there.
A
AJV
Guest
stmaria, you have Bugnini’s book and you know his reasons. My only point was not that it is good for “mysterium fidei” to be removed, but that it is a bit far fetched, bordering on untruthfulness, to suggest that it was removed to deny the Real Presence AND that to all Protestants it was emblematic of the Real Presence. As I wrote, above, mysterium fidei can be understood in a very Protestant sense, as a symbolical representation.
A
AJV
Guest
I know. The part you quoted, I was responding toCatholic2008 over the Dimond brothers’ claim.
Nope. Only in the English.
S
stmaria
Guest
Lily why do you keep on with this myth? You know that Tradition teaches that the words “Mystery of Faith” were given to the Apostles by Christ. Surely you do not deny Tradition and the Latern Council and the Council of Trent.
A
AJV
Guest
AFAIK, the Lateran council said nothing on it. Neither did the Council of Trent.
L
LilyM
Guest
I know absolutely no such thing. Neither has anything quoted on this thread demonstrated that they were.
I think it’s safe to say they weren’t said by Him at the Last Supper as they are in the TLM. Why mess with Our Lord’s words as scripture itself records them?
S
stmaria
Guest
How can you possibly say that the Catechism of Trent is not valid?
CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT FOR PARISH PRIESTS (Preface)
Issued by order of Pope Pius V
“The Fathers, therefore, of the General Council of Trent, anxious to apply some healing remedy to so great and pernicious an evil, were not satisfied with having decided the more important points of Catholic doctrine against the heresies of our times, but deemed it further necessary to issue, for the instruction of the faithful in the very rudiments of faith, a form and method to be followed in all churches by those to whom are lawfully entrusted the duties of pastor and teacher.”
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm
From the Catechism of Trent
Catechism of Trent
Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: 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, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition. **
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
A
AJV
Guest
I did not say that. But it does not have the same authority as a Canon of the Council and, though authoritative, is not infallible unlike a Canon of the council, except where it reiterates doctrine affirmed in Canons of the Council or previous doctrine. It only has the mandate not the ultimate approbation of the Council [because it came after the end of the Council] - and so is not on par with its canons.
S
stmaria
Guest
All I am saying is that there is more than enough proof that the words “Mystery of Faith” were given to the Apostles by Christ.
newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm
Summa Theologica St Thomas Aquinas
Article 3. Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: “This is the chalice of My blood,”
Objection 9. Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ’s institution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine.
On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form. …that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, “The Mystery of Faith.” Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Hebrews 9:14: “The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works,” that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, “which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”
Reply to Objection 5. The word “mystery” is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ’s blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
Reply to Objection 6. It is called the “Sacrament of Faith,” as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ’s blood in this sacrament.
*Cum Marthae circa *( November 29, 1202) Pope Innocent III
(On the sacramental form of the Eucharist)
You have asked who has added to the words of the formula used by Christ himself when he transubstantiated the bread and wine into his body and blood, the words which are found in the Canon of the Mass generally used by the Church, but which none of the evangelists has recorded… Namely, in the Canon of the Mass, we find the words “Mystery of faith” inserted into the words of Christ… Surely there are many words and deeds of the Lord which have been omitted in the gospels; of these we read that the apostles have supplemented them by their words and expressed them in their actions… But, in the words which are the object of our inquiry, Brother, namely the words “Mystery of faith”, some have thought to find support for their error; they say that in the sacrament of the altar it is not the reality of the body and blood of Christ which is [there] but only an image, an appearance, a symbol, since Scripture sometimes mentions that what is received at the altar is sacrament, mystery, figure. These people fall into such error because they neither understand correctly the testimony of the Scriptures nor receive respectfully the divine sacraments, ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God [cf. Mt 22:29]… Yet, the expression “Mystery of faith” is used, because here what is believed differs from what is seen, and what is seen differs from what is believed. For what is seen is the appearance of bread and wine and what is believed is the reality of the flesh and blood of Christ and the power of unity and love…Therefore, … we believe that the apostles have received from Christ the words of the formula found in the Canon, and their successors have received them from the apostles…
B
BobP123
Guest
Exactly.
If even the most Protestant of Bibles doesn’t say “for you and for all” what makes us think we know better than Christ and use them in our Catholic Mass? Not to mention attributing poor rhetoric to Christ Himself. We know Christ chose His words carefully so why are the words “for you” even necessary? And why don’t all Masses have the same words? They are all the same Mass, aren’t they?
Do we have moral certitude that the “for you and for all” Mass is valid? If so, why are we even discussing it? It seems at least to me that everyone here has a element, albeit small, of doubt about the subject.
So where’s Pope Leo when we really need him?
L
LilyM
Guest
Having even the worst translation of Our Lord’s actual recorded words pure and unadulterated, as the NO does, is still miles better than inserting a whole phrase that He clearly never said - namely ‘mystery of faith’ - into the words of Consecration!Exactly.
If even the most Protestant of Bibles doesn’t say “for you and for all” what makes us think we know better than Christ and use them in our Catholic Mass? Not to mention attributing poor rhetoric to Christ Himself. We know Christ chose His words carefully so why are the words “for you” even necessary? And why don’t all Masses have the same words? They are all the same Mass, aren’t they?
Do we have moral certitude that the “for you and for all” Mass is valid? If so, why are we even discussing it? It seems at least to me that everyone here has a element, albeit small, of doubt about the subject.
So where’s Pope Leo when we really need him?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Since this is a question, according to the Catechism of Trent, about apostolic tradition – then I would expect the words to show up in schismatic orthodox traditions and other traditions in union with Rome – eg: the maronite, etc. as each has the authentic apostolic succession in their liturgical traditions.
Here’s a couple of examples:
Byzantine (Chrysostom):
I haven’t found a single instance of a recorded liturgy in the early years which contain “mysterium fidei” – and wonder if this is a Thomistic blunder being recorded in the Catechism of Trent.
Thomas has been wrong on other points…
Certanly, the extra words do not affect the consecration –
as they do not change the meaning of the consecration.
In addition, “All” is as ambiguous as “many”. The perspective shifts, since “all” means the whole of a group, whereas “many” means a plurality. Certainly ALL of the MANY had the blood shed
for them.
How can this invalidate a consecration?
The words are a translation in the first place, Jesus did not speak them in Latin or English.
Here’s a couple of examples:
Byzantine (Chrysostom):
Or St. Hippolytus of ROME recording his local liturgy in the 200’s (3rd century.)
Note the epiclesis FOLLOWING the consecration here, whereas in the Tridintine mass – the priest blesses the bread with a triple gesture indicating the Holy Spirit’s invocation before the words of institution. Even the Roman liturgies had variations.
I haven’t found a single instance of a recorded liturgy in the early years which contain “mysterium fidei” – and wonder if this is a Thomistic blunder being recorded in the Catechism of Trent.
Thomas has been wrong on other points…
Certanly, the extra words do not affect the consecration –
as they do not change the meaning of the consecration.
In addition, “All” is as ambiguous as “many”. The perspective shifts, since “all” means the whole of a group, whereas “many” means a plurality. Certainly ALL of the MANY had the blood shed
for them.
How can this invalidate a consecration?
The words are a translation in the first place, Jesus did not speak them in Latin or English.
S
stmaria
Guest
Read "De Defectibus from the year 1570.
- Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating.** Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:**
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
olmcc.org/qhr_06_de_defectibus.html
S
Sure
Guest
Of course, at that time those were the words to be used. To leave out “Mystery of Faith” would not change the meaning and the Sacrament would be valid, but, as it says, the priest would be committing a grave sin. But today, the words mystery of faith are no longer a part of the words to be used. If a priest were to add them now, he would still have a valid consecration, but would be committing a grave sin. After all, the priest should “say the black and do the red.”
- Status