Fr. Brian Harrison's recent letter

[RSiscoe]

tuopaolo:

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.

The Catechism of the Council 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 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" (Catechism of Trent).

According to the Catholic Church the words “for many” refer only to those who will be saved, not to all those who Our Lord died for. So, not only does the change possibly invalidate the consecration, but it is a theologocal error that supports the new heresy of “universal salvation”.

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)

 

[Exporter]

Do you give respect to these words?

"*Pope Leo XIII: “They [the reformers] knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators (reformers)” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae).

L’Osservatore Romano: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 16, 1965)."*
**
I DO.

 

[RSiscoe]

Exporter:

Do you give respect to these words?

"Pope Leo XIII: “They [the reformers] knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators (reformers)” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae).

L’Osservatore Romano: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 16, 1965)."

I DO.

Don’t forget this one:

L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican Newspaper): “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church”. (October 13, 1967)

 

[tuopaolo]

RSiscoe, I don’t think you understood my point. I do not disagree with anything you quoted here. My point was NOT that multis can mean all. I do NOT believe it can mean all. My point was that “all” when used in the English Mass despite appearances actually means many because it is not the English in isolation, but the original Latin from which it is derived, however wrongly, that determines its meaning.

The Catechism of the Council 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 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" (Catechism of Trent).

According to the Catholic Church the words “for many” refer only to those who will be saved, not to all those who Our Lord died for. So, not only does the change possibly invalidate the consecration, but it is a theologocal error that supports the new heresy of “universal salvation”.

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)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

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)

RSiscoe or anyone else: In the portion of the quote above, does St. Alphonsus mean that “this is their own fault” because, in the excercise of their free will, they reject Christ? I’m not putting this very elegantly, but I think some people stumble over this because it sounds Calvinist in terms of election/predestination. “Multis” correctly translated does not exclude that Christ died for everyone, but that that Sacrifice is affective only for those who turn to Him? Thank you.

 

[RSiscoe]

JKirkLVNV:

RSiscoe or anyone else: In the portion of the quote above, does St. Alphonsus mean that “this is their own fault” because, in the excercise of their free will, they reject Christ?

I am pretty sure that is what he meant. He was saying that the “many” refered to in the consecration are those who correspond with God’s grace and are saved.

I’m not putting this very elegantly, but I think some people stumble over this because it sounds Calvinist in terms of election/predestination.

As you know, Calvin taught double predestination, which means that God created certain people to go to heaven, and the rest He created for the sole purpose of going to hell and there’s nothing they can do about it. We know that this is not correct: God created everyone for heaven. Unfortunately, most people will make a bad use of their free will and be lost.

After original sin, every human being was bound for hell. But since Our Lord redeemed us, we are able to be saved. This salvation is possible to all, but not all will be saved, since most will not cooperate with God properly. Anyone who is saved, through their cooperation with Divine Grace, is a “fruit” of the redemption.

The Catechism of Trent teaches that the words at the consecration of the Precious Blood refer to the “fruit” of the redemption: "The additional words for you and for many… serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion."

That part of the Mass only refers to those who will be saved. That does not mean that it only refers to those who God would like to be saved; but rather to those who make the proper use of their free will and are saved.

“Multis” correctly translated does not exclude that Christ died for everyone, but that that Sacrifice is affective only for those who turn to Him? Thank you.

I think I understood that. It sounded like you were saying what I said in my last paragraph. “For many” doesn’t mean Our Lord only died for many: We know that Our Lord died for all (I think that was defined de fide at Trent). Rather, it refers to those who will make the proper use of their free will and be saved.

When we consider the theology behind the words pro multis (as describe by the Catechism), we can see that mistranslating “for many” as “for all” is actually teaching the very common error of our day known as “universal salvation”.

 

[tuopaolo]

RSiscoe:

I"For many" doesn’t mean Our Lord only died for many: We know that Our Lord died for all (I think that was defined de fide at Trent). Rather, it refers to those who will make the proper use of their free will and be saved.

According to Ludwig Ott who would presumably be reliable on a matter such as this, it is only de fide that Christ did not die for the predestined only and it is sent. fidei proxima that Christ died not only for the faithful, but for all men without exception.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thank you both very much. I should think, then, that being clarified, we would want the most reliable translation of “many,” esp. given the modern trends toward indifferentism. However,I hardly believe that it invalidates the Mass. Like so many things, this will depend on those set over us. God won’t abandon His people, even in the face of the shepherds’ disinterest or, in some cases, overt hostility. I’m not thinking of the Pope when I say that, either.

 

[Sean_O_L]

“CHANGES TO THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION”
Source: christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/valmass.html

On the Validity of the Mass of Paul VI
Copyright - 1994 by Ed Faulk

Our first area of examination will be the Mass
Key objections to changes to the Mass seem to fall in the following areas:

• Use of the vernacular

“CHANGES TO THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION” <<<<<<<< (F.J.L.)

• Vatican II had no authority to change the Mass
• The ‘Protestantization’ of the Mass

Changes to the Words of Institution
The next area of concern to the ‘traditionalists’ is ‘changing the words of institution’.

If we look at the Tridentine Mass we find that the words of consecration are as follows:

Hoc est enim Corpus meum
For this is my Body
Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum

For this is the Chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins

We are told that we cannot tamper with these words because they are the ‘form’ of the Sacrament.

Yet, one asks, where did these words come from?

If we look at Scripture we find that the words of institution are listed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians.

Let us look at the words we find in these various books:

• Matthew 26:26-28
• hoc est corpus meum
• This is my Body
• Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in
  remissionem peccatorum
• This is my Blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for many for the
  forgiveness of sins

• Mark 14:22-24
• hoc est corpus meum this is my Body
• Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur.
• This is my Blood of the new covenant, it will be shed for many.

• Luke 22:19-20
• Hoc est corpus meum
• This is my Body
• Hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur.
• This cup is the new covenant in my Blood, it will be shed for you.

• 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
• hoc est corpus meum
• this is my Body
• Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine
• This cup is the new covenant in my Blood

As you can see, the words in Scripture are different from those found in the Tridentine Rite.

How, then, can they say that the Pauline Rite (Mass of Paul VI) ‘changes’ the words of institution?

However, their big objection is not so much the change of all the words, as the specific change of ‘for many’ (pro multis) to ‘for all’.

How is this change justified?

In the Greek, the word that is used is polus (polus) which means ‘many, much, large’.

How then is the change justified?

To answer that we need to look at what Jesus was about to undergo.

Did Jesus die on the cross only for the elect, or did he die for all?

CONTINUED

 

[Sean_O_L]

According to Trent, Jesus died ‘for our sins, and not only for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world’.

In fact, Trent cites II Corinthians 5:15 which says that Jesus died for all.

Trent further acknowledges that not all will receive the benefits of his death.

Yet, if Jesus died for all, then his Blood was shed for all.

Thus, the Tridentine formula, ‘pro multis effundetur’ reflects the results but not the intent.

The Vatican II formulation (‘for all’) reflects the intent as opposed to the results. That is, Jesus died for all, but not all accept the benefits of his death.

We now come to the crux of the matter.

What are the essential words, the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist?

St. Justin Martyr says the words that effect the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus are ‘This is my Body’ and ‘This is my Blood’.

St. John Chrysostom refers to the bread (‘This is my Body’) but does not refer to the consecration of the wine.

St. Ambrose of Milan follows the lead of St. Justin Martyr.

Other Fathers of the Church considered the epiclesis as the form (St. Irenaeus,

St. Cyril of Jerusalem while still others refer to the Prayer of blessing or what we would call the Eucharistic Prayer.

In the anaphora, an early Eucharistic Prayer from The Apostolic Tradition, we find the first recorded Eucharistic Prayer.

The words of institution used there are ‘This is my Body’ and ‘This is my Blood which is poured out for you’.

Now, assuming that the Eucharist was validly confected by these earlier Masses, we must reduce the ‘form’ to the words that are found in common.

Thus, the ‘form’ of the Eucharist must be ‘This is my Body’ and ‘This is my Blood’.

As long as these words are said, assuming proper intention and that the one saying them is a validly ordained Priest, the confection of the Eucharist takes place.

---

Extract from Catholic Converts Forum July 4, 1999

Re: **Mary and “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”

Mary and Romans 3:28**

I’ll just say briefly that one of his points is that the Greek word for “all” can be used in more than one way - doesn’t have to mean each and every single instance - and, in fact, is used that way in several places in the Bible, e.g., “All Judea followed Him and were baptized” (Matt 3:5 - 6) when obviously not everyone followed Christ and was baptized of Him. He also points out that Elizabeth and Zechariah are mentioned in Luke 1:5 - 6 as being righteous and observing the commandments “blamelessly.”

I also like to point out that Luther believed that Mary was sinless - and we all know that Luther had read Romans!

---

As to RSiscoe’s contention as to the possible invalidity of the Mass of Paul VI - this is heretical! More to come on THAT!

 

[RSiscoe]

Sean OL,

With all due respect, I honestly think you have gone from one extreme to the other. In your days with the SSPX you cheered for, and defended, things which probably should not have been defended; and today you are doing the same, only from the other side. The arguments you cut and pasted are not very good: they are very weak and easily refuted. I think that you should be able to realize that yourself. Let’s take a look at a few of the arguments.

As you can see, the words in Scripture are different from those found in the Tridentine Rite. How, then, can they say that the Pauline Rite (Mass of Paul VI) ‘changes’ the words of institution?

As you surely know, the Bible does not quote every single word spoken by Our Lord. Some Gospel accounts give some of the words; another version of the Gospel will give other words, and some words are not recorded at all. When one account quotes a few words, it does not imply that Our Lord didn’t speak what is recorded in another Gospel account; and if all the Gospel accounts are silent on one portion of the consecration prayers, it does not mean that Lord did not say them. That is why we have the Church and Tradition, in addition to the Bible. We are not Protestants.

The words of consecration come to us from the two sources of truth: the Bible and Tradition.

The Catechism of Trent: “We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form [of consecrating the bread] consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body. This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church”…

“With regard lo the consecration of the wine*, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins**. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.** *

“Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, ‘of my blood’, or ‘my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins’, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. **But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth” **(Catechism of Trent, pages 224-225).

The Catholic Church does not base its teachings on the “Bible alone”. That’s what Protestants do. Catholics have the inherent scriptures, yes, but we also have Tradition which helps to interpret scripture and fill in any gaps.
Sean OL:

However, their big objection is not so much the change of all the words, as the specific change of ‘for many’ (pro multis) to ‘for all’…. The Vatican II formulation (‘for all’) reflects the intent as opposed to the results. That is, Jesus died for all, but not all accept the benefits of his death.

If you read posts #60 and 65, you will see why the Catholic Church specifically says why Our Lord did NOT use the words “for all”.

But something else I find interesting is that the person you quoted called *for all *“the Vatican II formulation”. Surely he is not that ignorant, is he? The words “for all” did not come from Vatican II, nor did they come from the Novus Ordo Mass issued by Pope Paul VI in 1970. The words “for all” are a vernacular mistranslation of the original Latin version of the Novus Ordo Mass issued by Paul VI. The original Novus Ordo used the correct words - “pro multis” (for many), the problem came from the translations. And not all vernacular translations say “for all”; some correctly translated it as “for many”. I think the vernacular in Poland says for many.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation

The argument is not that Vatican II changed the words of consecration; nor is it that the New Mass issued by Paul VI changed it. The argument by those who defend the mistranslation is that the Vatican approved the mistranslations. They say that since the Vatican approved those versions of the Mass, they must be alright.

Well, if that is so – if the approval of the Vatican means that it must be OK – we have a problem. Why? Because a few years ago, the Vatican under John Paul II **approved a Mass that contains **no words of consecration AT ALL!

Believe it or not, it is true. On July 17, 2001, the Vatican approved the “mass” of the heretical Assyrian Rite (the Nestorian heretics of today), that contains no words off consecration.

“The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative.… the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision.”( PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY).

Now, the claim that the words of institution have never been used in that Mass has been shown to be false. The truth is that the words are not found in the older liturgies because the words were considered too holy to be written. The words purposely were not written in the liturgy, but WERE said at the consecration.

So, if someone is going to claim that every mass approved by the Vatican is valid, or even acceptable, they are going to have to defend a mass with no words of consecration.
Sean OL:

We now come to the crux of the matter. What are the essential words, the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist?

Now, this is a point that is debated. Some have taught that only the words “this is my blood” belong to the untouchable substance for the consecration of the wine, while others teach that all of the words are necessary for the consecration.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “I answer that, there is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words 'This is the chalice of My blood belong to the substance of the form, but not those words which follow. NOW THIS SEEMS INCORRECT, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood: consequently they belong to the integrity of its (i.e., the form’s) recitation” (Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 78, A. 3).

I do not claim to know the answer to that, which is why I don’t claim that the new Mass is certainly invalid. Some new Masses are invalid because some Churches take it upon themselves to use the wrong matter; but I don’t know if using the words “for all” invalidates the Mass: it may not. But I do firmly believe that the New Mass, as celebrated in most Churches in America today, is a danger to the faith. Simply look at the fruits that it has produced in both the laity and clergy.
Sean OL:

Our first area of examination will be the Mass
Key objections to changes to the Mass seem to fall in the following areas:

• Use of the vernacular

“CHANGES TO THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION

• Vatican II had no authority to change the Mass
  *** The ‘Protestantization’ of the Mass**

No one who is honest will deny that the new Mass has been Protestantized. It has employed virtually every single change that the Protestants employed, even though the Council of Trent condemned these changes. Now, these changes DID NOT come from Vatican II, but from the so called liturgists, who have continued to “reform” the mass. The following are a few of the changes found in the New Mass, which were made by the heretics of the 16th century:

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation

1.) The reformers changed the liturgical language from Latin to the vernacular, just like we find in the Novus Ordo today. Against this, the Council of Trent declared:

**“If anyone says that the ****Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only… let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session XXII Canon 7). **

Vatican II said Latin was to be retained in the Canon, while allowing some vernacular in other places. However, that did not stop the “liturgists” from completely doing away with Latin (with some exceptions).

2.) The reformers employed the practice of communion in the hand, and communion under both kinds, just like in the Novus Ordo today. Regarding this, the Council of Trent declared:

“If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread… let him be anathema” (Session 21 Canon 3).

“If anyone says that the Holy Catholic Church was not moved by just cause and reasons to give Communion under the form of bread only to laymen, and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this, let him be anathema” (Session XXI Canon 2)

Vatican II said nothing about communion in the hand, which was considered a sacrilege ad the time of the Council. In fact, even Paul VI and John Paul II were against communion in the hand, and with reservations only allowed it as an “indult”. However, that did not stop the liturgists from promoting this practice, which has now become the norm in the Church in America.

3.) The reformers had the Priest, or minister, face the people during the service, just like the Novus Ordo, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremias: “they have turned their backs to me, and not their face” (Jeremias 2:27). They also began to have all prayers said aloud, rather than certain prayers said silently, just like in the Novus Ordo. Against this, the Council of Trent said:

**“If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the **Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only… let him be anathema” (Session XXII Canon 9).

Vatican II did not call for any of these changes, which were all a result of the so called “liturgists”.

4.) The reformers replaced the altar with a table, just like in the Novus Ordo. Cranmer gave the reason for this: “The form of the table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass… For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it; the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon”(Thomas Cranmer works Vol II).

Vatican II did not call for replacing the altar with a table.

5.) Since Latin was no longer the language used, they replaced the sacred Gregorian chant with profane folk music, just like many Novus Ordo Churches today. In the Decrees of the Council of Trent we read:

“They shall also banish from the churches all such music which, whether by the organ or in the singing, contains things that are lascivious or impure…”

Vatican II said Gregorian Chant was to be maintained, yet the Catholic liturgists changed it anyway.

6.) They also removed the crucifixes and statues from their churches, and the celebrant ceased wearing the Sacred Vestments, just like in the Novus Ordo (with some exceptions). Against this the Council of Trent declared:

“If anyone says that in the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs that the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema” (Session XXII Canon 7).

Vatican II called for none of the statues to be removed, yet they have disappeared from many Churches in America.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation

All of the changes in the New Mass, which correspond perfectly to the changes employed by the heretics of the 16th century are a result of the so called liturgist, and not what Vatican II actually taught. It is these liturgists who have Protestantized the New Mass. Maybe now we can understand why our new Pope admitted the following:

“…there remains a troubling problem, which we should face up to.** A sizable party of catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate**; one can detect much the same position in the post conciliar discussions on the Priesthood… [the Catholic liturgist] R. Meßner’s … work on the reform of the Mass carried out by Martin Luther, and on the Eucharist in the early Church… arrives… at the conclusion that the early Church was better understood by Luther than by the Council of Trent…. Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard. (Cardincal Ratzinger, liturgical conference at Fontgombault, July 2001).

It has been the Catholic “liturgists”, who have Protestantized the new Mass. This external Protestantization cannot be blamed on Vatican II, since it called for none of these “reforms”; they have all been a result of the liturgitst who have concluded “**that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate.” **And let us not forget what Luther said about the Mass:

*I believe and confess that the popish Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist… and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which hideth and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; **and therefore ought the Mass to be abolished”. … *"When we have overthrown the Mass” said Luther,” we shall have overthrown the whole Papacy with it. For it is upon the Mass, as upon a rock, that the Papacy rests - with its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines. All these cannot fail to fall once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass crumbles to the dust" (Martin Luther, Against Henry King of England, Werke, Vol 10, pg 220).

Now we must come to the lex orandi lex credindi – “the law of prayer determines the law of belief”. This principle teaches that if a person attends a Protestantized mass, they will end by believing like Protestants, which is exactly what has happened in our day. As I have pointed out before, the following is what Pope Leo XIII said about the Anglican service, which is very similar to the New Mass today, the difference being that, in many ways, the Anglican service is actually MORE Catholic than the Novus Ordo, since they still receive communion kneeling and on the tongue. But aside from that, if you ever attend an Episcopal (Anglican) service, you will see that it is virtually identical to the New Mass. When my sister who, like myself, grew up going to the Episcopal Church, first went to a New Mass, she said to me: “that was just like Church when we were kids’ I followed right along”. Well, listen to what Pope Leo XIII said about that service which my sister said was “just like” the Novus Ordo Mass she attended:

“They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators (reformers)” (Pope Leo XIII. Apostolicae Curae).

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation

*But there are other changes in addition to these external changes, which make the Novus Ordo Mass Protestant. The prayers themselves have been Protestantized. This is less noticeable to the average Catholic, but no less disastrous: “*An average Christian without special liturgical training finds it hard to distinguish between a Mass sung in Latin according to the old Missal and a Mass sung in Latin according to the new Missal… the difference can be enormous” (Cardinal Ratzinger).

The prayers of the New Mass themselves have become Proestantized; and the strange thing is, the Vatican actually admitted it. About five years before the New Mass was introduced, the Vatican Newspaper, quoted *Annibali Bugnini, the principle architect of the New Mass, as saying the following: *

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 16, 1965).

Then, when the new Mass was complete the same Vatican newspaper informed us of the following: *“Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church” (L’Osservatore Romano, October 13, 1967). *

So even the Vatican admitted that the liturgy of the new Mass had become closer to the liturgical reforms of the heretic Martin Luther. There is no question that Annibali Bugnini, who designed the New Mass was one of the Catholic “liturgists” Cardinal Ratzinger was talking about when he said: “A sizable party of catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate.”

So, in addition to all of the external changes that have come about since the introduction of the new Mass, even the prayers themselves were Protestantized. Now maybe we can understand why Cardinal Ottaviaini, who was in charge of the Holy Office, said the following about the New Mass when it was first introduced:

”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 need to choose…” **

There is no doubt about it, the following prophecy has now come to pass: “I saw that those things which pertained to Protestantism gradually gained the upper hand… Most Priests contributed to the destruction of the Church” (Anna Catherine Emmerich).

But fortunately all is not lost. God has given us a Pope who realizes that the New Mass has become an absolute disaster, and must be corrected.

“I am convinced”, said Cardinal Ratinger, “that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy… when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless” (Milestones).

So, instead of defending the indefensible, why don’t we admit what the Pope has admitted and do something about it. We can either be a part of the problem or the solution. We can either defend the innovations of the “liturgists” or the Mass; but we can’t defend both!

“and Achab came to meet Elias. And when he had seen him, he said: Art thou he that troublest Israel. And he said: I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father’s house, who have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and have followed Baalim (the liturgists)…. And Elias coming to all the people, said: How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal (Luther and the liturgists), then follow him. And the people did not answer him a word” (3 Kings 18:17-18, 21).

 

[RSiscoe]

SeanOL,

I just wanted to let you know that I will be out of town and away from a computer for a few weeks and, won’t be able to respond to you.

 

[Ham1]

Sean O L is winning. His posts are coherent and to the point. The other super-long disjointed posts just don’t work.

Good job, Sean!

Next thread!

 

[Sean_O_L]

Ham1

Thanks. I am still waiting for RSiscoe to “come up with the goods” in respect of his post #48, and my request at #53:

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 Vatican.va/offices/papal_docs_list.html and
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.

Once he produces the full text for inspection, THEN, I will read his posts with more interest.