C
Church_Militant
Guest
Right on BC!
- Status
Right on BC!
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
I don’t think any future pope will abolish the Pauline Missal in one fell swoop - any idiot can see that the last set of wholesale liturgical changes brought rather unhealthy upheaval. No one with any pastoral sensitivity would consider doing the exact same thing in reverse. But I do think there will be a slow drift back towards the norms of the 1962 Missal. What will be necessary is for those who adhere to the former missal to acknowledge that it itself was a product of slight changes and exhibit at least a theoretical openness to further change in the organic mold of previous liturgical development because I find it highly unlikely that the liturgy will remain frozen in its 1962 form.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
I echo your concerns. What I’m afraid of is that so many Traditionalists have placed the '62 Mass in a lock box, and any change to it, even changes part of an “organic, living process” will be greeted with suspicion and derision.
I’d be interested to see what changes Lefebvre and some of the other more “conservative” types would’ve favored.
This is an interesting point. I’ve read (believe it was on the 'net, so I don’t know how factual it is) that during the Council, even Archbishop Lefebvre was in favor of some revisions to the Mass.
I echo your concerns. What I’m afraid of is that so many Traditionalists have placed the '62 Mass in a lock box, and any change to it, even changes part of an “organic, living process” will be greeted with suspicion and derision.
I’d be interested to see what changes Lefebvre and some of the other more “conservative” types would’ve favored.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
The schema dealing with the liturgy, which was prepared by the preperatory commision, did include certain slight changes in the mass. I don’t think there were any changes in the canon of the mass, but certain prayers were going to be said in the vernacular. If I recall, the epistle and the Gospel were both going to be read in the vernacular, rather than in Latin, but Latin was going to be retained in the canon. They spent two years preparing the schematas with great care. At the beginning of the council, all of them were dicarded, and eventually replaced with vague and ambiguous documents. A great victory for the liberals.
One of the liberal peritus of Vatican II, Father Edward Schillebeeckx said: “we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards” (Open letter to confused Catholics, pg. 106). Here is a quote from the Archbishop:
"I took part in the preparations for the Council as a member of the Central Preperatory Commission. Thus, for two years I was present at all its meetings. It was the business of the Central Commission to check and examine all the preperatory schemata issued by all the committees. Consequently I was well placed for knowing what had been done, what remained to be examined and what was to be put forward during the Council.
This work was carried out very conscientiously and with a concern for perfection. I possess the seventy-two prepatory schemata and can state, speaking generally, in these seventy-two *schemata *the doctrine of the Church was absolutely orthodox and there was hardly any need for retouching. There was, therefore, a fine piece of work for presentation to the Council - schemata in conformity with the Church’s teaching, adapted to some extent to our era, but with prudence and wisdom.
Now you know what happened at the Council. A fortnight after its opening not one of the prepared schemata remained, not one! All had been turned down, all had been condemned to the wastepaper basket. Nothing remained, not a single sentence. All had been thrown out."
Actually, Archbishop Levebvre was made n Assistant to the Papal Throne and a member of the Preperatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council, by John XXIII himself. The archbishop actually oversaw the preperation of the schematas for the Council of Vatican II, including that of the mass. I am good friends with an SSPX Priest who used to be Archbishop Lefebvres personal body guard and he has told me a lot of interesting stories.
The schema dealing with the liturgy, which was prepared by the preperatory commision, did include certain slight changes in the mass. I don’t think there were any changes in the canon of the mass, but certain prayers were going to be said in the vernacular. If I recall, the epistle and the Gospel were both going to be read in the vernacular, rather than in Latin, but Latin was going to be retained in the canon. They spent two years preparing the schematas with great care. At the beginning of the council, all of them were dicarded, and eventually replaced with vague and ambiguous documents. A great victory for the liberals.
One of the liberal peritus of Vatican II, Father Edward Schillebeeckx said: “we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards” (Open letter to confused Catholics, pg. 106). Here is a quote from the Archbishop:
"I took part in the preparations for the Council as a member of the Central Preperatory Commission. Thus, for two years I was present at all its meetings. It was the business of the Central Commission to check and examine all the preperatory schemata issued by all the committees. Consequently I was well placed for knowing what had been done, what remained to be examined and what was to be put forward during the Council.
This work was carried out very conscientiously and with a concern for perfection. I possess the seventy-two prepatory schemata and can state, speaking generally, in these seventy-two *schemata *the doctrine of the Church was absolutely orthodox and there was hardly any need for retouching. There was, therefore, a fine piece of work for presentation to the Council - schemata in conformity with the Church’s teaching, adapted to some extent to our era, but with prudence and wisdom.
Now you know what happened at the Council. A fortnight after its opening not one of the prepared schemata remained, not one! All had been turned down, all had been condemned to the wastepaper basket. Nothing remained, not a single sentence. All had been thrown out."
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
This is fascinating. I wonder if these “prepatory schemata” still exist, if someone kept a copy?
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
RSiscoe wrote:
Lest I become further aggrieved with your methodology, I would like to establish whether you hold an opinion that the Church (meaning the Supreme Pontiff) can determine and alter the matter and/or form of NO Sacrament whatsoever?
Thank you for pointing out to me that “you are certainly wrong” and by providing an alleged quote from Pope St Pius X. However, do you not realize how impolite and aggravating it is to be biven a “quote” from an unsourced document? I am happy to look at the quote IF you source it!
Lest I become further aggrieved with your methodology, I would like to establish whether you hold an opinion that the Church (meaning the Supreme Pontiff) can determine and alter the matter and/or form of NO Sacrament whatsoever?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Sean O L:
Lest I become further aggrieved with your methodology, I would like to establish whether you hold an opinion that the Church (meaning the Supreme Pontiff) can determine and alter the matter and/or form of NO Sacrament whatsoever?
You need to be more specific. The words can vary a little, as they do in various Rites, but they cannot be changed to such an extent that the meaning becomes different.
Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: “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**.** (The Council of Florence)”
So, we can see that there can be slight changes in the form used, but the words must have the same meaning, or consecration would not take place. But changing the Form at all would be dangerous. That is why in 1958, the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII issued a Monitum to all the Bishops of the world saying “that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the Sacraments” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis v. 50, pg 536).
The words of consecration have been defined de fide by the church. Why would anyone want to tamper with them at all? And why would they want to make a change in the Form that was explicitly refuted by the Church? As you certainly know, the Catechism of Trent explicitly stated why the Church does not use the words “for all” in the consecration, which is what the heretic Martin Luther did.
The Catechism of Trent: “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 and 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.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)
continue…
Thank you for pointing out to me that “you are certainly wrong” and by providing an alleged quote from Pope St Pius X. However, do you not realize how impolite and aggravating it is to be biven a “quote” from an unsourced document? I am happy to look at the quote IF you source it!
Lest I become further aggrieved with your methodology, I would like to establish whether you hold an opinion that the Church (meaning the Supreme Pontiff) can determine and alter the matter and/or form of NO Sacrament whatsoever?
You need to be more specific. The words can vary a little, as they do in various Rites, but they cannot be changed to such an extent that the meaning becomes different.
Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: “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**.** (The Council of Florence)”
So, we can see that there can be slight changes in the form used, but the words must have the same meaning, or consecration would not take place. But changing the Form at all would be dangerous. That is why in 1958, the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII issued a Monitum to all the Bishops of the world saying “that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the Sacraments” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis v. 50, pg 536).
The words of consecration have been defined de fide by the church. Why would anyone want to tamper with them at all? And why would they want to make a change in the Form that was explicitly refuted by the Church? As you certainly know, the Catechism of Trent explicitly stated why the Church does not use the words “for all” in the consecration, which is what the heretic Martin Luther did.
The Catechism of Trent: “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 and 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.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)
continue…
R
RSiscoe
Guest
continuation…
St. Alphonsus De Liguori: “**The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault… This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV.” **(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44)
Yet the same change, that Luther made to the consecration, and which was condmend by the Church, is present in the vernacular Mass. The Novus Ordo issued by Rome did not use the wrong words. The incorrect word was a result of a false translation.
So, if you are asking if a slight change would invalidate the sacrament, I would say no, because that is what the Church says. But, there have been more than just slight changes in the new form of consecration. For one, the “mysterium fide” has been taken out of the proper place, and the word “for many” have been purposefully mistranslated to “for all” in the vernacular masses. And, according to an infallible council of the church (quoted above), if “for all” and “for many” do not have the same meaning, there is a big problem. If that were so, the following prophecy of Daniel would now be taking place in the vernacular masses, or “masses”, whichever the case may be:
**“ 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). **
*St. Alphonsus: *"The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, 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)
“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.’ [The Mass in many languages]” (Ann-Catherine Emmerich, circa 1820).
St. Alphonsus De Liguori: “**The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault… This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV.” **(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44)
Yet the same change, that Luther made to the consecration, and which was condmend by the Church, is present in the vernacular Mass. The Novus Ordo issued by Rome did not use the wrong words. The incorrect word was a result of a false translation.
So, if you are asking if a slight change would invalidate the sacrament, I would say no, because that is what the Church says. But, there have been more than just slight changes in the new form of consecration. For one, the “mysterium fide” has been taken out of the proper place, and the word “for many” have been purposefully mistranslated to “for all” in the vernacular masses. And, according to an infallible council of the church (quoted above), if “for all” and “for many” do not have the same meaning, there is a big problem. If that were so, the following prophecy of Daniel would now be taking place in the vernacular masses, or “masses”, whichever the case may be:
**“ 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). **
*St. Alphonsus: *"The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, 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)
“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.’ [The Mass in many languages]” (Ann-Catherine Emmerich, circa 1820).
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Sean O L:
Pope Saint Pius X:* “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsover to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments” (Ex Quo non, Dec. 26, 1910)*
Pope Pius XII: "the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Denzingers. 3857)
Regarding slight variations in the words used in different Rites of the Church, Pope Clement VI taught the following:
“The Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, always without violating those which pertain to the integrity and necessary part of the sacraments” (Super Quibusdam, September 29, 1351).
*
*Here is the reference to the “alleged” quote by Pope Saint Pius X showing that the Church has no power whatsoever to tamper with the substance of the sacraments, as well as a few additional quotes from the magesterium that address your previous post:
Pope Saint Pius X:* “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsover to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments” (Ex Quo non, Dec. 26, 1910)*
Pope Pius XII: "the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Denzingers. 3857)
Regarding slight variations in the words used in different Rites of the Church, Pope Clement VI taught the following:
“The Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, always without violating those which pertain to the integrity and necessary part of the sacraments” (Super Quibusdam, September 29, 1351).
*
M
misericordie
Guest
Don’t gossip. This priest is a world-wide recognized scholar by the holy see herself, and very devout. A wonderful priest. He is recogniced even within the VATICAN, especially now that we have Pope Benedict XVI. I.e. the former cardinal Ratzinger!!
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
RSiscoe replied:
You have NOT perceived that there is a difference between "having power to change the form and/or matter - providing the essence - or, more accurately, the substance is preserved, protected, etc. AND,
“having no power over the substance.”
THAT is your problem! Your quote does NOT support your claim that St Pius X disallowed any “innovations”. In fact, in the light of your now very obvious lack of perception - what you perceive as innovation must automatically be suspect as blind prejudice.
Just for you though, and in an attempt to illuminate you, I have HTMLed and uploaded to my website
Does the Church Have Power Over the Form and Matter of the Sacraments
Extract from: ORDINATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD, by John Bligh, S.J.
Sheed and Ward, London and New York.
First Published 1956, Nihil Obstat: Carolus Davis, S.T.L., Censor Deputatus.
Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic. Gen. Westmonasterii, Die 30a Julh, 1955.
From: Part III. Essentials and non-Essentials
"THE DECREE FOR THE ARMENIANS", 1439 pp. 47-55.
The only official pronouncement on the matter and form of Orders made before the Council of Trent is contained in the famous Decree for the Armenians ratified in a solemn session of the Ecumenical Council of Florence on 22 November 1439, and signed by Pope Eugenius IV, eight cardinals, two patriarchs, five archbishops, thirty-five bishops, twenty-five abbots, and the Armenian envoys. 2]
The section of this decree dealing with ordination either conflicts, or at least appears to conflict, with the solemn and definitive pronouncement of Pope Pius XII in 1947. The Decree for the Armenians says:
Sextum sacramentum est Ordinis, cuius materia est illud, per cuius traditionern confertur ordo: sicut presbyteratus traditur per calicis cum vino et patenae cum pane porrectionem … Formae sacerdotii talis est: Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Translated as:
The sixth sacrament is that of Order; its matter is that by the giving of which the Order is conferred: thus the priesthood is conferred by the giving of a chalice with wine and of a paten with bread … The form of the priesthood is as follows: “Receive power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” 3]
But the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of 1947 says:
View the full file HERE
Not only that, but if you had done a search in Denzingers, you would have seen the reference to The Council of Trent’s Session XXI, June 16, 1562, Chapter II on “The Power of the Church as regards the Dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist”:
You have let your passion rule your reason. I forgive you for calling me NOT a Catholic; I hope that you will be able to see your errors and realise that the Church, the Popes HAVE the fullness of the power of the keys to bind or loose whatsoever - even those things which you do not “like.”
Ah yes - now I see your problem: you do not realize that English words (as well as other languages) have precise meanings:
You have NOT perceived that there is a difference between "having power to change the form and/or matter - providing the essence - or, more accurately, the substance is preserved, protected, etc. AND,
“having no power over the substance.”
THAT is your problem! Your quote does NOT support your claim that St Pius X disallowed any “innovations”. In fact, in the light of your now very obvious lack of perception - what you perceive as innovation must automatically be suspect as blind prejudice.
Just for you though, and in an attempt to illuminate you, I have HTMLed and uploaded to my website
Does the Church Have Power Over the Form and Matter of the Sacraments
Extract from: ORDINATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD, by John Bligh, S.J.
Sheed and Ward, London and New York.
First Published 1956, Nihil Obstat: Carolus Davis, S.T.L., Censor Deputatus.
Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic. Gen. Westmonasterii, Die 30a Julh, 1955.
From: Part III. Essentials and non-Essentials
"THE DECREE FOR THE ARMENIANS", 1439 pp. 47-55.
The only official pronouncement on the matter and form of Orders made before the Council of Trent is contained in the famous Decree for the Armenians ratified in a solemn session of the Ecumenical Council of Florence on 22 November 1439, and signed by Pope Eugenius IV, eight cardinals, two patriarchs, five archbishops, thirty-five bishops, twenty-five abbots, and the Armenian envoys. 2]
The section of this decree dealing with ordination either conflicts, or at least appears to conflict, with the solemn and definitive pronouncement of Pope Pius XII in 1947. The Decree for the Armenians says:
Sextum sacramentum est Ordinis, cuius materia est illud, per cuius traditionern confertur ordo: sicut presbyteratus traditur per calicis cum vino et patenae cum pane porrectionem … Formae sacerdotii talis est: Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Translated as:
The sixth sacrament is that of Order; its matter is that by the giving of which the Order is conferred: thus the priesthood is conferred by the giving of a chalice with wine and of a paten with bread … The form of the priesthood is as follows: “Receive power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” 3]
But the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of 1947 says:
View the full file HERE
Not only that, but if you had done a search in Denzingers, you would have seen the reference to The Council of Trent’s Session XXI, June 16, 1562, Chapter II on “The Power of the Church as regards the Dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist”:
Furthermore, in the light of Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis alteration to the Ordination Form - and inasmuch as the SSPX priests were ordained using the 1948 Rite - one would have to conclude (if one accepts your claim that the Form or Matter cannot be altered) that the SSPX priests Ordinations are invalid - would not one?
You have let your passion rule your reason. I forgive you for calling me NOT a Catholic; I hope that you will be able to see your errors and realise that the Church, the Popes HAVE the fullness of the power of the keys to bind or loose whatsoever - even those things which you do not “like.”
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Sean O L:
Let’s make this very simple. The following is what you wrote:
Sean OL:
Pope Saint Pius X: “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsover to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments” (Ex Quo non, Dec. 26, 1910)*
Pope Pius XII: "the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Denzingers. 3857).
*
Now, let me agains quote what I wrote in a previous post:
RSiscoe:
**So, we can see that there can be slight changes in the form used, but the words must have the same meaning, or consecration would not take place. *
*So, as I said above, the Church can make slight changes in the words used as long as the words maintain the same meaning. *
*Actually, reading back over your initial post I think we may be in agreement. Slight changes can be made, but they must maintain the same meaning. *
And the same is true with regards to the matter. There can be slight variations, such as leavened and unleveaned bread, for example, but the matter must be bread.
Your post was so jumbled and chaotic that I couldn’t tell what you were trying to say!
Let’s make this very simple. The following is what you wrote:
Sean OL:
- so long as the essence remains.*
Pope Saint Pius X: “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsover to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments” (Ex Quo non, Dec. 26, 1910)*
Pope Pius XII: "the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Denzingers. 3857).
*
Now, let me agains quote what I wrote in a previous post:
. (The Council of Florence)"
**So, we can see that there can be slight changes in the form used, but the words must have the same meaning, or consecration would not take place. *
*So, as I said above, the Church can make slight changes in the words used as long as the words maintain the same meaning. *
*Actually, reading back over your initial post I think we may be in agreement. Slight changes can be made, but they must maintain the same meaning. *
And the same is true with regards to the matter. There can be slight variations, such as leavened and unleveaned bread, for example, but the matter must be bread.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
RSiscoe wrote:
Why, Oh Why should I be amazed that you “couldn’t tell what (I} was was trying to say.”?
- You demean me by calling me not a Catholic.
- You do not understand waht is meant by “essence” - when, the term IS included in Denzinger’s Index.
- You do not understand that the “substance” is not/was not violated when Pope Pius XII actually DID make change Form for the Ordination of Priests - as explained by a Jesuit scholar, Fr. John Bligh, S.J.
- Worse than these, you do not understand that “change” is not necessarily “innovation.”
- You do not appear to understand that Pope Pius X’s Letter “Ex Quo Nono” was in respect of “Certain Errors of the Orientals”.
- You do not understand that “De defectibus” is de defunctibus! even more so than “Quo Primum”! It is outdated in virtue of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
- Even so, you do not understand that the injunction in “De Defectibus” related to a matter far different to the subject of the "substance of the sacrament.
I now recommend that you take the effort to actually try to read and comprehend the contents of the file on The Decree For the Armenians
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
RSiscoe, you wrote:
The problem is that I have proof-texted the Bible, extracting a phrase of three, and concocted a sentence which, in its entirety and as stated is false.
So! In respect if YOUR claim as to the quote of St Pius X – it is encumbent on you to produce a link to the full text of the document. I have attempted to find one – but failed. See http://www.Vatican.va/offices/papal_docs_list.html and
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/index.htm
without success.
I do not doubt that it exists – for Pope St Pius 10’s “Ex quo” of December 26, 1910 IS partially quoted in Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1955 Edition, pp. 551/2.
The problem is that the latter part of the quote “it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments; and no less inharmonious with this is the view that confirmation conferred by any priest at all is to be held valid.” Is immediately followed by the statement “These opinions are noted as ‘grave errors.’”
So, you may appreciate that it is imperative to sight the full text.
Back to you!
Now, I could make the following claim”
Someone might ask: “Is it true?” I could then say: “Yes, all of those words ARE in the Bible.”
The problem is that I have proof-texted the Bible, extracting a phrase of three, and concocted a sentence which, in its entirety and as stated is false.
So! In respect if YOUR claim as to the quote of St Pius X – it is encumbent on you to produce a link to the full text of the document. I have attempted to find one – but failed. See http://www.Vatican.va/offices/papal_docs_list.html and
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/index.htm
without success.
I do not doubt that it exists – for Pope St Pius 10’s “Ex quo” of December 26, 1910 IS partially quoted in Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 1955 Edition, pp. 551/2.
The problem is that the latter part of the quote “it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments; and no less inharmonious with this is the view that confirmation conferred by any priest at all is to be held valid.” Is immediately followed by the statement “These opinions are noted as ‘grave errors.’”
So, you may appreciate that it is imperative to sight the full text.
Back to you!
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Further addendum - worth repeating
I think that my point is amply proven.
That Pope Pius XII believed that he DID possess the power to alter (by defining) the Matter and Form of the Sacrament of Orders is plainly demonstrated in Sacramentum Ordinis.
I think that my point is amply proven.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
SeanOL=:
There is a difference between the form and matter used in the sacrament of Holy Orders, and that used in the Mass. The Church can make changes in the form and matter for holy Orders, because the form and matter was only given by Christ in genere - in general. But the form and matter used to consecrate Body and Blood of Our Lord is different: the form for this sacrament was given, not in general, but specifically. The the form used at Mass was given directly by Christ and thus cannot be altered.
**“Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined - e.g., to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders” (Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 13, page 299).
So let’s keep this on our original subject, which was the Mass.
Now, the Church has the ability to altar the form and matter used in the sacraments in which the form and matter were not given specifically by Christ, such as Holy Orders. But in those sacraments in which Our Lord did give us the precise form and matter to be used, the Church does not possess the ability to altar them. If there is even a slight deviation from the use of the proper form and matter, the sacraments are invalid: “In our sacraments… the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacraments null” (Catechism of Trent, page 151).
So, in the sacrament of Holy Orders the Church can make changes in the form and matter used. If they do, that approved form and matter must necessarily be followed without deviation. But with regard to the form and matter used at Mass, the Church has no power to alter them (except for a slight variation in the words, as long as the meaning is retained), since they were given directly by Christ.
That is why Pope Leo XIII said the following: “The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or “ceremonial” parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited…" (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae).
continue…
But who has been talking about Holy Orders? We have been talking about the Mass, not Holy Orders.
There is a difference between the form and matter used in the sacrament of Holy Orders, and that used in the Mass. The Church can make changes in the form and matter for holy Orders, because the form and matter was only given by Christ in genere - in general. But the form and matter used to consecrate Body and Blood of Our Lord is different: the form for this sacrament was given, not in general, but specifically. The the form used at Mass was given directly by Christ and thus cannot be altered.
**“Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined - e.g., to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders” (Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 13, page 299).
So let’s keep this on our original subject, which was the Mass.
Now, the Church has the ability to altar the form and matter used in the sacraments in which the form and matter were not given specifically by Christ, such as Holy Orders. But in those sacraments in which Our Lord did give us the precise form and matter to be used, the Church does not possess the ability to altar them. If there is even a slight deviation from the use of the proper form and matter, the sacraments are invalid: “In our sacraments… the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacraments null” (Catechism of Trent, page 151).
So, in the sacrament of Holy Orders the Church can make changes in the form and matter used. If they do, that approved form and matter must necessarily be followed without deviation. But with regard to the form and matter used at Mass, the Church has no power to alter them (except for a slight variation in the words, as long as the meaning is retained), since they were given directly by Christ.
That is why Pope Leo XIII said the following: “The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or “ceremonial” parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited…" (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae).
continue…
R
RSiscoe
Guest
continue…
That’s why Pope St. Pius X said: “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsover to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments” (Ex Quo non, Dec. 26, 1910).
The substance of the form used for the consecration of the bread and wine are fixed, since they were given directly by Christ, and, unlike the form used for Holy Orders, cannot be changed. If the church attempted to change the words used for consecrating the bread and wine, it would constitute a change in the substance of the sacraments, which is not allowed.
Pope Pius XII: "the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Denzingers. 3857).
The form to be used in the consecration of the body and blood of our Lord, are things which Christ himself decreed.
SeanOL:
Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "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*.** (The Council of Florence)"*
So, the following question arises: do the words “all” and “many” have the same meaning?
That’s why Pope St. Pius X said: “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsover to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments” (Ex Quo non, Dec. 26, 1910).
The substance of the form used for the consecration of the bread and wine are fixed, since they were given directly by Christ, and, unlike the form used for Holy Orders, cannot be changed. If the church attempted to change the words used for consecrating the bread and wine, it would constitute a change in the substance of the sacraments, which is not allowed.
Pope Pius XII: "the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947, Denzingers. 3857).
The form to be used in the consecration of the body and blood of our Lord, are things which Christ himself decreed.
SeanOL:
No, defectibus, which comes from the INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC Council of Florence is not “defunctibus”, and “outdated”. The Form used for the consecration of the bread and wine were given by Our Lord, and cannot be changed. As the Council said, a slight change in the words used can be made, but the words must maintain the same meaning, or the sacrament is invalid.
Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "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*.** (The Council of Florence)"*
So, the following question arises: do the words “all” and “many” have the same meaning?
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
Again, Rsiscoe writes rhubarb! – and demonstrates that he either cannot or will not read what is actually written. I demonstrate:
Now! THAT, Rsiscoe, is a Quod erat demonstrandum! End of story. And you do not have the grace to concede. Shame!
De Defectibus HAS been “defuncted” in virtue of the new Code of Canon Law. The form of the Sacrament is “This is My Body” and This is MY Blood" (or This is the Cup/Chalice of My Blood"
If this was not so (as St Thomas Aquinas says) then, Trent (which laid down what the Form would be - until another Council or future Pontiff declared otherwise - was in error in inserting additional words and phrases and joining together words and phrases “some from Matthew, some from Luke but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p.227)
At that time. the same Catechism said “with reason, therefore, were the words “for all” not used” - but, this was in a time when the Church needed to emphasise the EFFICACY aspect of Christ’s death as opposed to the SUFFICIENCY aspect which was promoted by the protestants of the time.
On page 214 of the very same Catechism, it declares that the Institution of the Eucharist comprised (for the Chalice) the words:
As an example of that principle, I chose the Sacrament of Orders – quoting extensively from Ordination to the Priesthood by Fr. John Bligh, S.J. in which he demonstrated how Pope Pius XII amended the Form and Matter of the Sacrament of Ordination.
Now! THAT, Rsiscoe, is a Quod erat demonstrandum! End of story. And you do not have the grace to concede. Shame!
De Defectibus HAS been “defuncted” in virtue of the new Code of Canon Law. The form of the Sacrament is “This is My Body” and This is MY Blood" (or This is the Cup/Chalice of My Blood"
If this was not so (as St Thomas Aquinas says) then, Trent (which laid down what the Form would be - until another Council or future Pontiff declared otherwise - was in error in inserting additional words and phrases and joining together words and phrases “some from Matthew, some from Luke but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p.227)
At that time. the same Catechism said “with reason, therefore, were the words “for all” not used” - but, this was in a time when the Church needed to emphasise the EFFICACY aspect of Christ’s death as opposed to the SUFFICIENCY aspect which was promoted by the protestants of the time.
On page 214 of the very same Catechism, it declares that the Institution of the Eucharist comprised (for the Chalice) the words:
You admit to a pope having power to change the form of matter of SOME of the Sacraments - but then have the chutzpah to again deny that fact by quoting (or is it misquoting!) Pope Leo XIII with:
Why should nayone take an ounce more of your nonsense. You obviously have a short attention span and completely lack logic! Hypocrite! You challenge the Power of the Keys exercised by Popes Paul VI to John-Paul II over an Aramaic word which you do not understand and, at the same time, are ignorant of Trent. And you try to flim-flam an old man from Oz!
T
tuopaolo
Guest
IMO, the word “all” piggybacks onto the meaning the Latin “multis” so even though ordinarily in English “all” does not mean multis, in the Mass, it does because the meaning of the Latin from which the English is derived overrides the ordinary meaning of “all” in English.
E
EddieArent
Guest
Well, maybe the Holy Spirit got it wrong. Let’s ask Cardinal Pell over in Australia.
- Status