Consecration Words: Novus Ordo vs TLM

[AJV]

Read "De Defectibus from the year 1570.

1. 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

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

olmcc.org/qhr_06_de_defectibus.html

Actually this does bring up an interesting side issue. Most of the renderings of De Defectibus that I have seen in English use the word “does not mean” when translating “non significarent”.Isn’t that a bit of a loose translation instead of “does not signify”? Given that “signify” has a particular meaning in Scholastic terminology- for the Eucharist, for e.g. the conversion of the bread into the Body?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

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!

I only hope you are joking, otherwise are you saying Cults, some of which have the worst translations, are better?

If this is what you are implying please clarify this anti-Christian position with references, that include why ‘mystery of faith’ is worse.

 

[BobP123]

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!

Did anyone say that Christ said this? This is the first I heard of such nonsense.

And by the way, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” is NOT a mystery of faith. It is a historical FACT.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Did anyone say that Christ said this? This is the first I heard of such nonsense.

And by the way, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again” is NOT a mystery of faith. It is a historical FACT.

It is both fact and mystery. He has died, He has risen, He will come again. That qualifies as a mystery of faith, IMHO.

 

[stmaria]

It is both fact and mystery. He has died, He has risen, He will come again. That qualifies as a mystery of faith, IMHO.

You know that “Mystery of Faith” does not refer to what you have posted. In 1965 Pope Paul was very distressed at the criticism of the changes in the Mass. The changes were being called “heretical”. In response to this he published Mysterium Fide. As you can see “Mystery of faith” refers to Transubstantiation not the current usage that you site.

*Mysterium Fidei *
Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI September 3, 1965
“…Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to the faith and devotion to the Divine Eucharist…we have with apostolic authority decided to address you, venerable brothers, and to express our mind on this subject…We certainly do not wish to deny in those who are spreading these singular opinions the praiseworthy effort to investigate this lofty mystery and to set forth its inexhaustible riches, revealing its meaning to the men of today; rather we acknowledge and approve their effort. However, we cannot approve the opinions which they express, and we have the duty to warn you about the grave danger which these opinions involve for correct faith… many illustrious martyrs have witnessed with their blood, while celebrated Fathers and Doctors of the Church constantly professed and taught it; that is, that the Eucharist is a very great mystery. In fact, properly speaking, and to use the words of the sacred liturgy, it is the Mystery of Faith. “Indeed, in it alone,” as Leo XIII, our predecessor of happy memory very wisely remarked, “are contained, in a remarkable richness and variety of miracles, all supernatural realities.”
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6myster.htm

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

The Divine Liturgy of St. John is valid. The Divine Liturgy of St. John does not contain the words “Mysterium Fidei” anywhere. Ergo, the words “Mysterium Fidei” are not necessary for validity.

Case closed. People, it all comes down to faith. Christ would not allow a Pope to promulgate an invalid Mass. No private revelation to any Saint or Blessed (i.e. Anna-Catherine Emmerich, Marie-Julie Jahenney) can supersede the binding Magesterium of the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[MikeDunphy]

You’re referring to the Greek and Latin translation of His words which would have been in Aramaic - that translation could be wrong. What does the Aramaic say?

The following is an excerpt from an interlinear translation of the Peshitta (the Aramaic version of the Bible):
http://www.geocities.com/adlib.geo/shedformany.gif

The gospels, recorded in Greek, say that Jesus “for many”. The translation of the Gospels into Aramaic reports His words as “for many”. The traditional Latin Mass recounts His words as “for many”, as does the new Mass in its normative Latin form. The Divine Liturgies have “for many”. The saints have written about why our Lord said “for many” rather than “for all”. Nowhere in Holy Scripture or Tradition is it claimed that Jesus said at the Last Supper that He sheds His blood “for all”. The ICEL translators got the words of consecration wrong.