Does anybody in here besides me think the new words of consecration make massinvalid?

[Trcmm]

I was wondering this, because from what I read about pope Eugene and about the new wording changing themeaning by not distinguishing the body of God to those who would be saved, I truly think its invalid.

I think the devil has talked about destroying the church for years through the masons, and I think hes done so through mass.

If you think about it, this is what disturbes me.

1. the vatican, who are supposed to be apostles of christ allowed 6 protestant ministers into the vatican to give suggestions on the mass.

This is totally not good, I do not know alot, but I know this is not right at all.

1. They stripped everything from the mass. Im only 24 but my aunt and her husband have told me that they removed alot of the (unworthy) sinner prayers and have stripped churches naked almost like (protestant) churches.
2. If you truly have conscience you ca actually see that since it was created in I think 1969, al the grace truly in the world has been lost.

Look when rock and roll started to really get bad, or tv, or the lack of morality, around that time.

Its truly seeable.

This one church in my neighbor hood has women giving out communion. How can a true apostle allow this to happen? it truly has to be freemasons in the church destroying it.

I wanted to ask if im the only traditional catholic in here who believes the new wording makes it invalid?

 

[manualman]

Nobody else here believes that. We’re catholics. We have this nice promise that the gates of hell won’t prevail against us. Guy name Jesus said so. Seems pretty trustworthy.

 

[Trcmm]

No thats not what I meant. Please why cant anybody be sincere anymore?

Prevail means not fully overcome. Christ has reinstated the traditional wording in the latin mass, and also the eastern rites which have never changed their words, so hell would not prevail if the words make it invalid.

Have you even looked into the words of consecration or studied the faith about this or just accept things as they come that seem to destroy the faith?

Im trying to be as sincere as possible, I came into this church by Gods will two years ao andam trying to understand and find the truth, because the real presence in the mass is all tha matters.

from what ive read, the new wording truly changes the meaning of dstinguishing the body of christ.

Also doesnt it concern you alittle that protestants were allowed to give suggestions on the new mass?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Trcmm,

While it is true that there were six Protestants present during much (but not all) of the discussion of the reform of the Mass, they had no direct official (name removed by moderator)ut – they were to offer ideas or suggestions only when asked, and then to keep those comments specifically to the issue at hand. They had very little to do with the actual reform of the Mass.

If is not possible for the Church to produce a Mass that is not valid – that would be a case of Satan overcoming the Church. The Pope is the keeper of the Liturgy (so sayeth Pope Pius XII, anyway). AS such he has the right to regulate the Liturgy everywhere in the world. He has exercised that right.

The Mass we see today (the Mass of Paul VI) was, in large part, based upon a collection of early liturgies with parts drawn from both East and West.

The Mass is perfectly valid. I grew up in the pre-Vatican II days, and I can tell you that it wasn’t as great as many seem to think (most of whom were never there). At the same time, there is a great deal of “individual responsibility” in the Mass that seems to be missing today. Everyone seems mroe willing to “tinker” with the Mass – and that is wrong. The Mass belongs to the Church, not to the priest, the parish or any group or individual.

So, while I appreciate your concerns, they are not based upon any reality for to accept your concerns as valid would mean that the Church has defected from Her role. Fortunately, the indefectability of the Church is an article of faith.

Deacon Ed

 

[AJV]

Trcmm:

new wording changing themeaning by not distinguishing the body of God to those who would be saved

Trcmm:

No thats not what I meant. Please why cant anybody be sincere anymore?

Prevail means not fully overcome. Christ has reinstated the traditional wording in the latin mass, and also the eastern rites which have never changed their words, so hell would not prevail if the words make it invalid.

from what ive read, the new wording truly changes the meaning of dstinguishing the body of christ.

Explain please.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Trcmm:

I was wondering this, because from what I read about pope Eugene and about the new wording changing themeaning by not distinguishing the body of God to those who would be saved, I truly think its invalid.

I think the devil has talked about destroying the church for years through the masons, and I think hes done so through mass.

If you think about it, this is what disturbes me.

1. the vatican, who are supposed to be apostles of christ allowed 6 protestant ministers into the vatican to give suggestions on the mass.

The Apostles were unique - the Pope succeeds to part of Peter’s function in the Church, but does not become an Apostle; no bishop does or can.​

No one has ever said what the six Protestants did that ruined the Mass. The Council was doing liitle more than what the Fathers of Trent did, when they consulted the work on the Liturgy of of a Byzantine author who lived his whole life in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, but not with the Pope of Rome. I forget who it was - Nicolaus Cabasilas, possibly.

The six Protestants were liturgists - how the the CC worships, indirectly concerns all Christians. FWIW, no one seems to object to co-operation between Catholics, Protestants & Jews in the editing or the translation of Scripture. Cardinal Martini was involved in work on the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament - no one objects to this. Why should they ? Catholics have benefited greatly from Anglican scholarship in the Fathers: yet no one worries about this. Again, why should they ? The world of liturgical, Biblical, church historical and other scholarship is inter-confessional; it has been for 300 years.

This particular example of co-operation between Christians is surprising only because it is well-publicised - it certainly isn’t anti-Catholic. If anything, it is an example of the Catholicity of Christian scholarship: the Mass is of interest to others in the Church than RCs - and has been for a long time. ##

This is totally not good, I do not know alot, but I know this is not right at all.

1. They stripped everything from the mass. Im only 24 but my aunt and her husband have told me that they removed alot of the (unworthy) sinner prayers and have stripped churches naked almost like (protestant) churches.

The reason they were removed may be that they obscured the outlines of the Mass. The prayers in question (called apologiae) though beautiful, duplicate the confession of the priest - they are not even original: they were added in the eight and later centuries, after the Roman Liturgy was mixed with the Gallican Liturgy on being taken to France in the late eighth century. It was re-exported to Rome later on - and the Roman Missal was contaminated by Gallican texts. The loss of some prayers is a bit of long-overdue pruning. Benedict XIV (1740-58) intended to reform the Roman Missal, but never got round to doing so. The Pauline Missal is in some ways far more traditional than that of 1962: there is more than one way of being traditional, which does not help to clarify matters.​

As for naked churches - Protestant churches are by no means all naked. Angluican ones can be very elaborate. Not that a naked Church is “uncatholic” - I think it was the Cistercians who had very plain and bare churches. Everything depends on the motive for the bareness. ##

1. If you truly have conscience you ca actually see that since it was created in I think 1969, al the grace truly in the world has been lost.

1. Why should God be unable to work by means of the revised liturgy ?
2. “God is not tied to the Sacraments” ##

Look when rock and roll started to really get bad, or tv, or the lack of morality, around that time.

Its truly seeable.

Rock and roll is not the beginning of evil - there was plenty of slavery, torture, murder, unbelief, piracy, treason, fraud, political assassination, kidnapping, hatred, sacrilege, blasphemy, and so forth in the previous 1950 years. And before. People have been done wrong for thousands of years - it’s called human sinfulness ​

If people had a better grasp of history, they might be less liable to blame all evils in the world on the revised liturgy: as though sin were invented only in 1965. ##

…continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

This one church in my neighbor hood has women giving out communion. How can a true apostle allow this to happen? it truly has to be freemasons in the church destroying it.

Why freemasons ? Why not fallible human beings whose understanding of what the Church permits in the Liturgy is weaker than it might be ?​

Maybe the women are Eucharistic Ministers. Distrivbution of Holy Communion is nlot for the priest alone - certainly not if there are enough communicants to justify having EMs to help him out. ##

I wanted to ask if im the only traditional catholic in here who believes the new wording makes it invalid?

Theologically, it would be a dogmatic fact that it is valid - because of the consequences of saying otherwise. (Whether the logic is sound, is another matter.)​

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Trcmm:

I was wondering this, because from what I read about pope Eugene and about the new wording changing themeaning by not distinguishing the body of God to those who would be saved, I truly think its invalid.

This proposition was condemned by Pius VI hundreds of years ago. Thus, your proposition is contrary to traditional Catholicism.

See here: Are Ecclesiastical Disciplines Infallible?

 

[bauerice]

ancillapress.com/SSPI/SSPIindex.html

 

[palmas85]

manualman:

Nobody else here believes that. We’re catholics. We have this nice promise that the gates of hell won’t prevail against us. Guy name Jesus said so. Seems pretty trustworthy.

An opinion and nothing more. Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail afainst the church. I believe that to my heart and soul. However, that comment, and that promise, I believe pertains to the Mystical Church, not the Institutional Church as we know it. The mystical body of the Church is safe, but the Institutional Church, just look around. I’m not so sure at all.

And no, I don’t think the consecrations are invalid these days.

 

[m134e5]

To the Original Poster: I think you need to study the Faith more. Your claims do not hold much ground.

 

[Thursday1]

Also, spice your complaints up a bit, don’t always use the masons.
The real history of the masons is decidedly boring, it was just a group of rich men with delusions of grandeur, much like the U.N.
How I long for the good old days when not every conspiracy theory involved the masons, or the illuminati. (I wasn’t actually alive in the good old days, but I can still long for them.)
Why not make the enemy “the naughty hellfire club,” everyone loves them!

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

P.S.
You can google the naughty hellfire club, they did actually exist.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Trcmm:

I was wondering this, because from what I read about pope Eugene and about the new wording changing themeaning by not distinguishing the body of God to those who would be saved, I truly think its invalid.

Without cutting and pasting from a radical site can you in your own words explain to us exactly what problems you have with what a former pope said the the current validity of the Eurcharistic consecration?

Trcmm:

I think the devil has talked about destroying the church for years through the masons, and I think hes done so through mass.

I think a broad statement like that is a very radical conclusion and I assume you have some hard facts to bring you to it. Perhaps you could offer some of those so that others might understand what it is that you are aware of which seems to have escaped a great many others.

Trcmm:

If you think about it, this is what disturbes me.

Actually that’s why I am asking you to flesh out your precise problem, I for one, cannot understand what exactly is the problem you have as you have not really spelled it out specifically.

Trcmm:

I1. the vatican, who are supposed to be apostles of christ allowed 6 protestant ministers into the vatican to give suggestions on the mass.This is totally not good, I do not know alot, but I know this is not right at all.

Could you please (again without cutting and pasting) just expressing your own thoughts, tell us what contributions the observers/consultors made which you think are wrong…what did they exactly suggest that was adopted which you feel should not have been? Please be specific.

Trcmm:

1. They stripped everything from the mass. Im only 24 but my aunt and her husband have told me that they removed alot of the (unworthy) sinner prayers and have stripped churches naked almost like (protestant) churches.

What parts of the Mass were stripped post council? What is missing that used to be there?

Trcmm:

1. If you truly have conscience you ca actually see that since it was created in I think 1969, al the grace truly in the world has been lost.

Well I do have a conscience but I am afraid I do not yet see the connection between that fact and liturgical changes made by the worlds bishops (which is their right ) in council. If you could explain more fully it would be helpful.

Trcmm:

This one church in my neighbor hood has women giving out communion. How can a true apostle allow this to happen? it truly has to be freemasons in the church destroying it.

Well that’s an interesting thesis alright, but then how do we explain the fact that long before the Masons were around, the Romans were critiquing Christians for having their women carry the Eucharist to the sick and those who could not sneak out into the catacombs and hidden places to meet with other Christians?

Trcmm:

I wanted to ask if im the only traditional catholic in here who believes the new wording makes it invalid?

But you have not made clear what kind of traditional Catholic you are – for the rest of us to know, it would be helpful as I mentioned above, if you could flesh out your “ideas” and why you have come to the conclusions or doubts you express in your initial post.

And I must ask, if you really believe that the consecration is invalid, what does that infer about the priesthood, the apostolic authority of bishops, the validity of the pope’s teachings the magesterium of the Church and Christ’s promise? What conclusions have you drawn with regard to those matters based on the statements in your post?

 

[theMutant]

Trcmm:

I wanted to ask if im the only traditional catholic in here who believes the new wording makes it invalid?

Although I agree that many very bad changes have been made to the Mass, I think you’re clutching at straws. In later posts you seem to repeat that the change of wording of the consecration is invalid but the references you give are not the words of the consecration. The words of the consecration are:

“This is my body.”
“This is my blood.”

The current Latin rite of Mass includes the requirements for the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Offeratory, Consecration, and Communion). Therefore, the current rite is completely valid. Yes lots of things were changed and I believe for the worse. But those changes do not constitute an invalid Mass.

 

[puzzleannie]

well since your comments are disorganized and seem to be entirely fantasy, I cannot comment, except to say that the magesterium of the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, decides the words and form of the liturgy, so as long as the priests are following proper matter and form for the sacrament, with proper intention, it is valid. My opinion is absolutely valueless, so is yours unless your name is Benedict XVI

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From Webopedia…

**troll **(v.) (1) To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding.

 

[Trcmm]

" troll "

thats not what I came in here for, and you can think what you will but its not the truth.

If freemasons have entered into the hierarchy, which I believe they have, and created this mass, along with destroying tradition little by little, that does not mean the church would be overcome because small groups of traditional catholics still exist today who do not promote gays, abortion, giving out communion to noncatholics, saying hell does not exist, kissing the bible of the devil.

You fail to realize that mary said, rome wll lose the faith andbecomethe seat of antichrist, and it is happeneing, alot of catholics including rome which is probably infested with freemasons who are not just a group of rich men, they run the usa an the world, do not hold the true traditinal faith.

we have had 20 some antipopes I believe it is, in our history who claimed to be pope. You suls mix in

" gates of hell will not overcome church "

your interpretation is hell will not (touch) the church. thats true because true traditional believers will always exist, this is the church, not the vatican itself, but true believers will nevr be overcome.

he said prevail, he did not say hell will not fight against the church.

The words of consecration from what I read, you cannot change the words that change the meaning distinguishing those who would be saved.

" For many unto the remisiion of sins "

this distinguishes the souls connected to christ recieving communion I believe.

Pope Pius V said you cannot change the words to change the meaning in De Defectibus, but he was just reafirming what Eugene said aout thewords in at Florence.

Every rite in the church has always used the distinguishing words.

" For many unto the remisiion of sins "

If you change it to

" For all so that sins may be forgiven "

They are distinguishing universal salvation, for sins that may be forgiven that have not already.

Im not talking about different rite, im talking about the words have remained the same until this new mass was created, I truly think a freemason created it to destroy grace.

what I mean about grace in the world being lost, is that since it was created the new mass, sin has oincreased to new heights.

I cannot believe you older souls cannot see what I mean, its seeable and I did not grow up in the golden age of morality the 50s.

decade by decade sin has increased since they changed the mass, with the new wording.

60s was bad, 70s got much worse, 80s was full of gay culture, 90s with ganster rap and horror, what next?

God has aloowed this mass, the traditonal latin mass to come back to restor to the faithfull a true mass with the true presence.

Also, some of your links did not work, I would like to read them, please repost the links you gaveme, because im not scared to be sincere. there are just some things you can see, and you ca literaly see the destruction of grace since they chaged the words.

Im not saying the neww mas canot be valid with removing prayers and changing different things, im talking about the words which affect the sacraments graces.

A mass outside on a rock could probably be valid with a true preist and the right words.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

However, that comment, and that promise, I believe pertains to the Mystical Church, not the Institutional Church as we know it. The mystical body of the Church is safe, but the Institutional Church, just look around. I’m not so sure at all.

So, there is a difference between the “institutional” Church and the “mystical” Church? So the Church is just an invisible communion of Believers? Hmm…sounds awfully protestant…

If freemasons have entered into the hierarchy, which I believe they have, and created this mass, along with destroying tradition little by little, that does not mean the church would be overcome because small groups of traditional catholics still exist today who do not promote gays, abortion, giving out communion to noncatholics, saying hell does not exist, kissing the bible of the devil.

So, do you have any proof to back up your wild conspiracy theories?

You fail to realize that mary said, rome wll lose the faith andbecomethe seat of antichrist, and it is happeneing, alot of catholics including rome which is probably infested with freemasons who are not just a group of rich men, they run the usa an the world, do not hold the true traditinal faith.

Again, conspiracy theories and misinterpretation of Marian apparitions don’t do much to back up your claims.

your interpretation is hell will not (touch) the church. thats true because true traditional believers will always exist, this is the church, not the vatican itself, but true believers will nevr be overcome.

So, who decides who is “traditional”? What authority to you have to cast the shadow of heresy over the Vatican?

Im not talking about different rite, im talking about the words have remained the same until this new mass was created, I truly think a freemason created it to destroy grace.

Take a look at this site.
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm

I cannot believe you older souls cannot see what I mean, its seeable and I did not grow up in the golden age of morality the 50s.

decade by decade sin has increased since they changed the mass, with the new wording.

60s was bad, 70s got much worse, 80s was full of gay culture, 90s with ganster rap and horror, what next?

Oh, please. Pull your head out of the sand and realize that there really never was a golden era of perfect morality. You see more of it because it is broadcast far and wide and this media is far more accessible than before.

 

[Jayson]

You do realize that it’s still pro multis in latin right?

Most Catholics do not speak english.

ACCÌPITE ET BIBITE
EX EO OMNES:
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINES MEI
NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI,
QUI PRO VOBIS
ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR
IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
HOC FÀCITE
IN MEAN COMMEMORATIONEM.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ever heard of the Council of Trent? Sorry, you said you were a “traditional” Catholic. Well, that little gathering stated that the Church was incapable of promulgating for the faithful a defective or invalid Mass. So, that would make any assertion that the Pauline Mass is defective or invalid…a heresy. If this is your honest opinion, (and not some passing doubt or fear), I pray that you abjure this most vile heresy and return to the embrace of Holy Mother Church, which is found not in outward forms, but in obedience and fidelity to Her mandates, liked or unliked, popular or unpopular. Communion with the See of Peter and with the one who occupies his seat there is what determines whether or not one is Catholic.