Enough is enough

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

It is foolish to diregard it simply because a particular website has also linked to it. You’re right. I’m diregarding it because it would mean the popes had allowed the Church to be lead into error in a matter of faith, which they are prevented by Christ from doing by His promise to Peter. The fact that it’s linked to a rad trad site makes it that much easier to disregard it, but thats not the main reason.

I also find it very funny that you would be so concerned that a layman who attends an Indult Mass (which is what I attend) would question the validity of the new Mass, when so many Priest, Bishops and even Cardinals blantanly deny basic Church dogma’s and moral teachings.

And I would welcome the opportunity to meet with my Bishop and tell him my concerns about the New Mass. There is actually nothing I would more prefer to do. I have already met with his “spiritual adviser”, who I was told was a “great theologian” and who is actually a total heretic. I met with him for over and hour and we had, basically, a friendly debate. He was the most liberal modernist I have ever even heard of. He explicitly told me that he teaches the teenagers at his Church that Jesus was a “party animal”. He also tried to convince me that Jesus was a sinner by quoting the verse that says “He (Jesus) was like us in every way”. When I finished the verse by saying: “He was like us in every way except sin”, he disregarded it and moved on. He was also in favor of abortion, and defended it. And he is the “spiritual adviser” to our local Bishop. What does that say about our local Bishop?

I absolutely concur that we have bishops and priests who are at best disobedient and at worst possibly heretics. I have NO doubt about that whatsoever. I AM concerned about that. If any of them had asserted what you said about the NO Mass, I’d be asking them the same questions I’m asking you. If they asserted anything else heretical on any other topic, you can bet I’d be questioning them. I’ve argued with a priest in the confessional about why I KNOW I committed a mortal sin that he was dismissive about, because he was not giving accurate voice to the teaching of the Church. I don’t see what that drift has to do with the question at hand.

I also cannot account for the priest with whom you spoke or your local bishop (if what you say is true, why do you not report your concerns to the Apostolic Nuncio at the least or the Congregation for Bishops at the Holy See? You can actually even email the Holy Father). I’m sorry to hear of it. But you have constructed what is basically a straw man argument, haven’t you? What does that priest or any influence he may have over your bishop have to do with the validity of the Mass currently offered in the English speaking world? You and I know full well that the state of the priest’s soul has absolutely no effect on the efficacy of the Sacraments. Why, then, bring it up ( and I assure you that I am not asking that belligerently, but with the idea of maintaining focus)? We were talking about the validity of the NO Mass in the English Translation. That topic had threaded off from your assertion that people should attend the TLM, as opposed to the NO, which is the normative Mass of the Church. I’ve always supported the generous application of the Indult, as HHJPII requested and think it a scandal that so many bishops have dragged their feet over what was clearly the will of the Holy Father and what should have been done in simple fraternal charity even if he had given only a half-hearted gesture of support for the Mass in Latin. The sole issue that has to be addressed is whether or not the Mass currently offered in English speaking countries is a valid Mass or not. I maintain that it is, not because I know anything at all about liturgy, but because I believe that the Popes cannot, when acting on such a matter (we must admit that it is a matter of faith, not merely discipline), lead the Church into error. To say that they have lead the Church into error on this matter, so central to our faith, is to say that Christ has failed in His Promise to maintain the Church’s indefectability. I hope I would die before admitting that. I will not press you any further about your bishop or diocese, given what you’ve said about his “spiritual advisor”. He sounds like the kind of bishop who would jump at the chance to suppress the Indult Mass under his authority, rather than cautioning people to be careful in what they say (I do not wish to engage in calumny). But really, if you’re going to cite rad trad sites and books, please don’t bother on my account. There have been countless threads on this very topic, ad infinitum, on these forums (Archbishop Bugninni, Cardinal Ottovanni, conspiracies with the Protestant observers at Vatican II, conspiracies with the Masons). The arguments have been made and I doubt anyone’s mind has been changed, in either camp.

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t reject anything the Church has said

I am glad to hear that you do not reject anything the Church has said. Let us once again review what the Church has said so you will know what to believe.

At the dogmatic infallible Council of Florence, the Holy Ghost told us, through the Church, what the words of consecration are, and then proceeded to teach (infallibly) that if anyone were to change any of the words to another word that did not mean the same thing; or if anyone were to remove any words from that Form of consecration (which it had just given us) the consecration would be invalid.

Council of Florence: “The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR 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 UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.” (Council of Florence, Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1)

So, according to what you said – that you “don’t reject anything the Church has said” – you must therefore believe that infallible statement from the Council of Florence.

But how can you, on the one hand, believe the above infallible teaching which says that changing or removing any words from the consecration will invalidate the Mass; and then on the other hand claim that a Mass which has done both is valid, and that anyone who questions it is a heretic? You are not being honest. You claim to believe the infallible teaching from the Council of Florence, yet when someone who REALLY believes what it says, applies the teaching, you call them a heretic.

Secondly, since you “don’t reject anything the Church has said”, you must also believe what the universal Catechism of Trent said about the words “for many”. You must believe that the words “for many” refer, not to those who our Lord died for, but to the “fruit” of His death: that is, the elect.

Catechism of Trent: “… The additional words for you and for many…serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, ‘And for many’, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.”

Since you don’t reject anything the Church has said, you must believe that the words “for many” refer to the elect. And if you believe that those words refer to the elect, you must also believe that changing the words “for many” to “for all” implies the heresy of universal salvation. After all, if “for many” refers to the elect (those who will be saved), changing the words to “for all” implies that all men will be saved. That is obvious. That is why the Catechism them when on to say

Council of Trent: "With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.”

continue

 

[USMC]

So, I will ask you again, do you believe the infallible Council of Florence, which said that changing anything, or removing anything from the words of consecration would invalidate the Mass? If you do believe that, which you said you do, then, given that the new Mass has done both, you only have one conclusion to draw.

Now, I want to address two more points: 1.) whether God would allow this to happen; and 2.) whether it would mean that His promise failed.

Would God allow the sacrifice of the Mass to cease being valid?

It is Church teaching (taught by many Popes, and Councils) that anything that was held unanimously by the Church fathers (the “unanimous consent of the fathers”), is part of Catholic Tradition (which a capital T), and therefore is to be held as true by all Catholics. This is a common teaching of the Church and I could quote many Pope who have taught this. To keep this as short as possible, I will only quote the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, both of which are infallible councils.

Council of Trent: “Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one … shall… presume to interpret them [the scriptures] contrary to… the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.”

Vatican I: “Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent… has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals…. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers (First Vatican Council, 3rd Session, Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, 24 April 1870).

So, the Church has taught infallibly that the interpretation of scripture, which was held unanimously by the Fathers of the Church, is to be held by all Catholics.

This brings us to a prophecy from the book of Daniel, where we are told that at some point the continual sacrifice (the Mass) will cease.

“ and strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and the truth shall be cast on the ground… they shall defile the sanctuary… and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and shall place there the abomination of desolation.” (Daniel 8:12, 11: 33).

Now, according to Cardinal Manning, who studied the Church fathers thoroughly on the subject of AntiChrist, they all held “unanimously” that the above quote applies to the Sacrifice of the Mass, which at some point will cease.

Cardinal Manning: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of antichrist, and of the prophecies of Daniel, without exception, as far as I know – and they are the Fathers of both the East and of the West, the Greek and Latin Church – all of them unanimously say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease. In the work on the end of the world, ascribed to St. Hippolytus, after a long description of the afflictions of the last days, we read as follows:

‘The Church shall lament with a great lamentation, for there shall be offered no more oblation nor worship acceptable to God. The sacred buildings of the churches shall be as hovels [stripped]; and the precious Body and Blood of Christ shall not be manifest in those days; the True Liturgy shall become extinct… Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries.’”

So, according to Pope and Councils, we are to hold what was held by “the unanimous consent of the Fathers”. And according to Cardinal Manning, who studied them thoroughly, it was the unanimous consent of the Fathers that at some point the Sacrifice of the Mass would cease.

St. Alphonsus, who is one of only 33 doctors of the church, and one of the greatest theologian wrote the following about the same prophecy from the book of Daniel:

St. Alphonsus: “The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Masss, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice (Dan 8:12)’.” (St. Alphonsus, The Dignities and Duties of The Priest, London: Benzinger Bros., p. 212)

So, it is actually Church teaching that the Mass will cease to be valid at some point. Whether that is today or not can be debated, but we must agree that at some point “the continual sacrifice (of the Mass) will cease”.

continue

 

[USMC]

Question: Would God allow the sacrifice of the Mass to cease?

Answer: according to the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (which we must hold as true), yes, God will allow the Mass to cease.

Question: Why would God allow such a great evil to occur?

Answer: God Himself, through His prophet Daniel, has told us why this will happen:

Daniel 8:12“ and strength was given him against the continual sacrifice [the Mass], because of sins: and the truth shall be cast on the ground…”.

So, it is Church teaching that at some point the Sacrifice of the Mass will cease – become invalid. And since the Fathers of the Church all believed in the promise of Jesus – that “the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church” – they must have believed that this cessation of the Mass would not be a breaking of that promise. There can be no question that the Church would go through a great crisis without a valid Mass (such as we have today, for example), but that the gates of hell would never totally prevail.

“I am convinced, wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, “that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.

Just as our Lord went through His passion so to the Church will go through hers. And just as the apostles abandoned our Lord when his enemies seized Him, so we should not be surprised if their successors abandon Him, when the Church suffers its own passion (crisis). But we can be absolutely certain that, just our Lord rose again, so too the Church will rise again (as has been prophecied).

Question: How will it come to pass that “the continual sacrifice will cease”?

Answer: Actually, I can’t say for sure. Many people have speculated how this could happen, but no one knows for sure. But you yourself may indeed have given us a clue in something that you said. It is at least as “valid” of an explanation as others have put forth. We will look at what you wrote in a minute; first a little back ground.

The Popes are protected by the charism of Infallibility when they are defining a doctrine of faith or morals. But they are not necessarily protected by this charism when they sign something. For example, Pope Honorious signed a very bad document (which he was later declared a heretic for signing), as a compromise in an attempt to bring a group of heretics back into the Church.

Also, Pope Liberius signed a semi- Arian document which helped the Arians. But he did so against his better judgment, due to fear. His signing of that document is usually explained away by those defending him, by saying that he did not really believe what he was signing to be true, but signed it somewhat against his will; or at least against his better judgment.

That is interesting to consider when we read what you wrote about Paul VI. As you know, the Mass published by Paul VI did not use the words “for all”. It had the correct words, “for many”. The wrong words came from the translation into English (and other languages). However, the words “mysterium Fidei” are missing from the Mass published by Paul VI. How could a Pope allow this when an infallible council said that removing those words (or any words) would invalidate the Mass?

You may have given us the answer. If what you said is true, Paul VI knew better, but signed the document anyway (just like Pope Liberius):

JKirkLVNV:

“Paul the VI apparently complained, EVEN AS HE SIGNED the legislation permitting the changes to the Mass,“But where is the mystery?”, but he signed it anyway)

If true, that is very interesting. This may possibly explain how what was prophecied by Daniel thousands of years ago, would finally come to pass. According to what you wrote, Paul VI signed the document promulgating the new Mass against his better judgment . So, if that act promulgated an invalid Mass, it was not due to the Pope being deceived, but due to a Pope being weak, and signing something that he knew he should not have signed. The fact that he “complained even as he signed” it, as you wrote, shows that his conscience was warning him. Unfortunately, he chose not to follow his better judgment, but “signed it anyway”. Thus, very likely fulfilling the thousand year old prophecy of Daniel, as interpreted by the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”.

continue

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

Do you believe that the English Masses offered under the Missal of Paul VI (the NO Mass) and permitted by the Holy See (whether they liked them or not is another argument altogether) are valid or not? If they aren’t, then the Popes since Paul VI have allowed the Church to be lead into error, if they didn’t actively lead Her there themselves, Christ has failed in His Promise to Peter, and Catholic Truth is void.

WOW, that last line sounded very familiar, didn’t it. Remember what Daniel said after warning that the sacrifice will cease?:: “and strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and the truth shall be cast on the ground…”.

JKirkLVNV:

this is the act of our redemption, the most important thing DONE by the Church. In good faith, 1-2 genereations of Catholics in the English-speaking world have lived and died under this Mass, under the leadership of the Vicars of Christ that permitted it/

Scary isn’t it. But remember, it is the unanimous teaching of the fathers of the Church that at some point it will happen. It is even predicted in the Bible. God has warned us that it would happen. Therefore we should not be surprised it has.

Since we know with certainty, that at some point the “continual sacrifice will cease”, it is not being “schismatic” or “heretical” for someone to believe the infallible teaching of the Council of Florence and thus to draw the obvious conclusion.

JKirkLVNV:

If what YOU say is true, then the Popes have lead the Church into error. I do not believe this… I don’t believe it because I don’t believe Christ would fail in His Promise

But you are mistaken. By allowing “the continual sacrifice to cease” it would not mean Christ’s promise failed. Our Lord did not say “the Mass will always be valid”. What He said was “the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church”. The Church Fathers all taught that the Mass will cease at some point, yet none of them concluded that this would cause Christ’s promise to fail.

Prophecies of the new Mass:

Have you noticed how so many of our modern Churches are very odd looking, with nothing holy about them? There was even a book published recently called “ugly as sin” which exposed this grotesque architecture. Another point: Before 1970, the exact same Mass (with no variation at all) used to be said in every Church within the Western rite, and in the same language (Latin). Wherever you went in the world you would find the exact same Mass that you had at you local parish, being said in the same language you were used to. Today the Mass is said in hundreds of languages. We went from a unified Mass in one language, to hundreds of languages almost at once (on 1970)… kind of like what happened at the Tower of Babel - from one language to hundreds.

Ann Catherine Emmerich: "I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it…** nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but only bread**. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then my guide (Jesus) said: 'THIS IS BABEL.” (Ann-Catherine Emmerich, circa 1820).

The “odd-looking Churches” with “nothing holy about” them, and the multiple languages (like with Bable) was predecited by Ann Catherine Emmerick almost 200 years ago. And she also said that this Mass would be invalid.

continue

 

[USMC]

The following are the words of our Lord to Marie-Julie Jahenny, a 19th century stigmatist (with an absolutely extraordinary life).

*"I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period.

"The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy Priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss.

"Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it."
“They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children.”*

We can’t say that we haven’t been warned. The Bible tell us that at some point “the continual sacrifice will cease”, the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church have told us that this refers to the Mass. Before Paul VI, no Pope had ever changed the words of consecration. In fact, no Pope, as far as I know, has ever promulgated anything that is explicitly contrary to an infallible teaching of the Church. Unfortunately, this indeed took place when Paul VI published a new Mass. The Church has taught infallibly that if anyone changes a word, or removes word, from the infallibly defined prayer of consecration, that the Mass would be invalid. In the English version of the new Mass a word has been changed – “for many” changed to “for all” (in spite of what the Catechism of Trent explicitly said) - and two words have been removed. I will allow you to draw the obvious conclusion, when considering what all of the Church fathers have taught.

The following is an excerpt from a letter written to Paul VI before he published the New Mass. It was written by the Cardinal who in was the Prefect of the Congregation of the Holy Office (the former name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), whose job it was to protect the integrity of the Faith. This is the position Cardinal Ratzinger held before being elected Pope. The Cardinal who wrote the following letter held the position under three Popes. This is part of what he said about the new Mass:

”From the outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Since unity of worship has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we were told, was always to be defended without compromise? It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic crisis of conscience…”

“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error”

Unfortunately, the Pope did not listen to this Cardinal, whose job it was to protect the faith. According to what you wrote he also did not listen to his conscience, but instead chose to sign a Mass that was missing essential words to make it valid (according to the Holy Ghost who spoke through the Council of Florence)…

Solution:

Fortunately for us, there is a solution. God has not left us orphans. We still have a Mass whose validity is without question. The words of consecration are exactly as they were defined INFALLIBLY to be. No words have been changed, no words removed. Its validity and orthodoxy is unquestionable. You will not have to endure abuses, or put up with heresy from the pulpit (since the priests are always very orthodox). The only problem is that you will be treated as a second class Catholic, and called names (schismatic, heretic, etc.). Your Catholic friends, who do not attend that Mass, will look on you with suspicion. But it is all worth it, and you will receive more grace as a result. “Blessed are you when you are persecuted for justice sake”… “you will be hated of all men for my names sake, but those who persevere unto the end shall be saved”. “When I return will I find, think ye, any faith on earth?”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wow, I have to admit, you are good! I mean it (except we’re not obligated to believe the private revelations, even the Marian ones). Nevertheless, I still intend to leave it to the Holy See. Take heart, the new translation says “many,” “not all.” I freely admit I’m not enough of an apologist to counter you (there might be some here, though). Unfortunately, even if I were fond of the Latin Mass (and I hope it’s always offered in the vernacular, as it is in my parish), I’d be out of luck. There is no Indult here, only the schismatic SSPX chapel.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But here are some interesting discussions you might like to read. I’ll post them as I find them. Some of the links also have interesting links of their own:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11161&highlight=Novus+Ordo+Mass+Validity

%between%

 

[snow_white]

Steve Green:

Go to a different church. I had to . It is great !!
This really proves one thing. The Catholic Church in the west is not as large as numbers indicate. It will be smaller in the near future if the Holy Father institutes a real reform of the NO.

There are two things the modernists do not want:

1. the TLM
2. any chance of reunification of east and west.

They make their living out of being prot. catholics.

Why don’t they want a reunification of east and west?

 

[pnewton]

USMC:

Council of Florence: “The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR 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 UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the** FORM** of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”…But how can you, on the one hand, believe the above infallible teaching which says that changing or removing any** words** from the consecration will invalidate the Mass; and then on the other hand claim that a Mass which has done both is valid,

Since your post(s) were longer than I wish to read, I stopped at the first inconsistency and error. I bolded the place where you changed what the Council said. The council did not say in your above quote changing any words invalidates the Mass. It could not lest the whole latin mass be invalid, since it was changed from the Aramaic and Greek. So that is why the caveat is added, "and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing."

You left this part off in you rewording of the council’s statement. That is wise because then the question must be asked, “What this same thing is that must remain the same?” The answering of this question is the in the hands of the Magesterium, most of whom are well versed in all the Church fathers. The truth of teh Council of Florence is alive today. It is possible to change the form of Mass, both the words and the bread, and thus invalidate the Mass.

 

[USMC]

pnewton:

Since your post(s) were longer than I wish to read, I stopped at the first inconsistency and error. I bolded the place where you changed what the Council said. The council did not say in your above quote changing any words invalidates the Mass. It could not lest the whole latin mass be invalid, since it was changed from the Aramaic and Greek. So that is why the caveat is added, "and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing."

You left this part off in your rewording of the council’s statement.

pnewton:

Since your post(s) were longer than I wish to read, I stopped at the first inconsistency and error."

Not only did you not finish reading what I wrote, but it appears you didn’t even read what I started off by saying. I specifically mentioned that the changed word would have to mean something different than the original word.

This is what I wrote:

USMC:

At the dogmatic infallible Council of Florence, the Holy Ghost told us, through the Church, what the words of consecration are, and then proceeded to teach (infallibly) that if anyone were to change any of the words to another word that did not mean the same thing; or if anyone were to remove any words from that Form of consecration (which it had just given us) the consecration would be invalid.

Since, in order to emphasis the point, I repeated myself several times, I may have left part of the sentence out one of the times. But that really does not matter since the changed word I was referring to does not mean what the original word meant!

If you would have finished reading what I wrote you would have seen that I was not referring to the word being translated into a different language: that would not affect the consecration. The problem is that the changed word does not mean what the original word meant.

But, since you brought it up, I will ask what you think: Do the words “all” and “many” have the same meaning? If not, what are we to conclude, based on what the infallible Council of Florence said?

And if they do have the same meaning, why did the Catechism of Trent specifically say the words “for all” were not used?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The “pro multis” issue was asked and answered by the Church, the final arbiter on such matters.

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he [sic] may be in divine Scripture”
– St. Thomas Aquinas

“Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey”
– Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman

“… **one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. **
***-- ***Pope St. Pius X (allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)”

See more here:
Concerning the words “pro multis” - did Jesus shed his blood for all or for many?

The death of Christ was sufficient for all, efficacious only for many. The translation does not make the Mass invalid, however, as “pro multis” in many valid formulas through history, was often entirely omitted.

 

[pnewton]

USMC:

Not only did you not finish reading what I wrote, but it appears you didn’t even read what I started off by saying. Do the words “all” and “many” have the same meaning? If not, what are we to conclude, based on what the infallible Council of Florence said?

And if they do have the same meaning, why did the Catechism of Trent specifically say the words “for all” were not used?

I do not apologize for taking a cursory reading of your post, since the rules of this forums specifically address lenghty posts are to be avoided.

“All” is related to “many” and in English there is a difference between the two. “All” can beused in a distributive sense in Greek and English that does not include every human being. Translation by its nature always changes the meaning somewhat. I would say it would be up to curia over the divine liturgy to determine what would be proper.

As far as the Council of Trent, I do not understand the significance of discipline imposed on the order of Mass by that council in particular, but I trust that great minds like John Paul II and now Benedict XVI do.

 

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

The “pro multis” issue was asked and answered by the Church, the final arbiter on such matters.

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he [sic] may be in divine Scripture”
– St. Thomas Aquinas

“Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey”
– Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman

Yes indeed, the Church has spoken. And, as the quote you provided says: “after it has spoken, the most gifted obey”. Let us again review what the Church has said, always remembering that the truth does not change and the Church will never contradict herself. Realizing this, we can trust in the timeless truths of the Church:

**Catechism of Trent: “With regard lo the consecration of the wine… the priest… 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.

“… The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.” **

Isn’t it a consolation to have such a clear teaching from the magesterium? And isn’t it also a wonderful to know that the truth taught by the Catholic Church will not change (since truth does not change.

St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, also discussed the words “for all” and “for many”. And, as you probably already knew, what they said was EXACTLY what the Catechism of Trent said.

"… one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.
***-- ***Pope St. Pius X (allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)"

Absolutely. Let us never oppose the Pope’s authority, especially when they are speaking infallibly, since an infallible statement is guaranteed to be true. There is always a very slight possibility that a Pope may do something imprudent, or possibly even say something that is incorrect; but when they are speaking infallibly we can be 100% certain that what they say is true and that this truth wil never change. Let us review one of those infallible statements. Surely all true Catholic will believe the following statement:

Council of Florence: “The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR 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 UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.” (Council of Florence, Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1)

It sure is great to have such a clear teaching on the words of consecration. This way we know what is required for a valid Mass.

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation of previous post.

itsjustdave1988:

The death of Christ was sufficient for all, efficacious only for many.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus said His blood would be shed “for many” instead of “for all”. After all, Jesus died for all men, not just for many. So why did Jesus say “for many”? It may seem like somewhat of a mystery, but the Church has clear the matter up for us.

Catechism of Trent: "When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.” ."

We sure are fortunate that the Church has cleared this up for us. That way, there is no confusion over the matter. But, of course, there still could be confusion for those who refuse to “hear the Church”. But for those who submit to the teachings of the Church, knowing that truth does not change, they have an infallible guide which will enable them to know what to believe, and thus will never be led astray.

Before the Church speaks, men may err, but after the Church has spoken the truly faithful obey.

“Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey” – Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman

itsjustdave1988:

"The translation [using “for all” instead of “for many”] does not make the Mass invalid, however, as “pro multis” in many valid formulas through history, was often entirely omitted.

Ooops. You must not have read what the Church teaches on the subject. The Church teaches that if any words are change - and if the new word does not mean what the old word meant (that was for you pnewton); or if any words are removed (such as mysteriuim Fide) then the Mass would not be valid.

Since the Church has taugth us this at an infallible Council, we can be certain it is true. In fact, we must believe it if we are to remain faithul Catholics. Remember, after the Church speaks, we must obey.

Since you provided so many great quote showing that we Catholics must obey the teachings of the Church, I will end with this question. Do you believe the quotes I provided from the Catechism of Trent and from the Council of Florence?

 

[USMC]

USMC:

continuation of previous post.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus said His blood would be shed “for many” instead of “for all”. After all, Jesus died for all men, not just for many. So why did Jesus say “for many”? It may have seemed like somewhat of a mystery had the Church not cleared the matter up for us.

Catechism of Trent: "When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.”

."

We sure are fortunate that the Church has cleared this up for us. That way, there is no confusion over the matter. But, of course, there still could be confusion for those who refuse to “hear the Church”. But for those of us who submit to the teachings of the Church, knowing that truth does not change, we have an infallible guide which will enable them to know what to believe.

Before the Church speaks, men may err, but after the Church has spoken the truly faithful obey.

“Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey” – Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman

Ooops. You must not have read what the Church teaches on the subject. The Church teaches that if any words are change - and if the new word does not mean what the old word meant (that was for you pnewton); or if any words are removed (such as mysteriuim Fide) then the Mass would not be valid.

Since the Church has taugth us this at an infallible Council, we can be certain it is true. In fact, we must believe it if we are to remain faithul Catholics. Remember, after the Church speaks, we must obey.

Since you provided so many great quote showing that we Catholics must obey the teachings of the Church, I will end with this question. Do you believe the quotes I provided from the Catechism of Trent and from the Council of Florence?

 

[BillyT92679]

The ultimate fact of the matter is, according to Catholic doctrine, one must give an assent of the will to every Magisterial pronouncement. We’re not Orthodox Christians, the Pope is not simply a leader who only has to be recognized once every 150 years that he signs a Papal bull with an infallible statement, and then otherwise is just a first among equals. It was declared anathema by Vatican I to attempt to ignore magisterial prouncements by referring back to a previous ecumenical council, as if the Councils themselves are the only real Ordinary Magisterium.

People just will constantly keep trying to be more Catholic than the Pope… Our Lord did not declare me, or you, or even the other 11 Apostles themselves to have the Keys of the Kingdom, though all Twelve do have power to bind and to loose. Only St. Peter and his successors have that power… I’m amazed at otherwise orthodox Catholics who continually reject that basic tenet of our faith… it’s cafeteria Catholicism on the right.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

The “pro multis” issue was asked and answered by the Church, the final arbiter on such matters.

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he [sic] may be in divine Scripture”
– St. Thomas Aquinas

“Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey”
– Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman

“… one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.
***-- ***Pope St. Pius X (allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)”

See more here:
Concerning the words “pro multis” - did Jesus shed his blood for all or for many?

The death of Christ was sufficient for all, efficacious only for many. The translation does not make the Mass invalid, however, as “pro multis” in many valid formulas through history, was often entirely omitted.

Dave: Great blog!

“According to Pius VI, the proposition that the Church may establish approved ecclesiastical disciplines that are harmful or dangerous to the faithful is condemned as erroneous. Thus, the Church is protects from establishing a liturgy that is invalid, as this would be harmful to the faithful.”

I thought the argument went something like that, but I didn’t know who posited it. THanks!

 

[USMC]

BillyT92679:

The ultimate fact of the matter is, according to Catholic doctrine, one must give an assent of the will to every Magisterial pronouncement. We’re not Orthodox Christians, the Pope is not simply a leader who only has to be recognized once every 150 years that he signs a Papal bull with an infallible statement, and then otherwise is just a first among equals. It was declared anathema by Vatican I to attempt to ignore magisterial prouncements by referring back to a previous ecumenical council, as if the Councils themselves are the only real Ordinary Magisterium.

People just will constantly keep trying to be more Catholic than the Pope… Our Lord did not declare me, or you, or even the other 11 Apostles themselves to have the Keys of the Kingdom, though all Twelve do have power to bind and to loose. Only St. Peter and his successors have that power… I’m amazed at otherwise orthodox Catholics who continually reject that basic tenet of our faith… it’s cafeteria Catholicism on the right.

Just curious. Do you believe what the universal Catechism of Trent said about the word “for many”? Remember, we can’t pick and choose which teachings we believe or else we become “cafeteria Catholics”.

So, do you believe what that Catechism says? Yes or no?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

Just curious. Do you believe what the universal Catechism of Trent said about the word “for many”? Remember, we can’t pick and choose which teachings we believe or else we become “cafeteria Catholics”.

So, do you believe what that Catechism says? Yes or no?

As it is interpreted, taught, expanded upon, and clarified by the Magisterium of the Church, I doubt anyone here doesn’t believe in Trent’s teachings.