If someone says the Eucharist is not valid in the NO

[Planty_Pall]

Now that the words of consecration are going to be translated correctly in the new translation of the Missal into English (“Pro Multis” = “for many,” not “for all”), hopefully we’ll be hearing less of these people saying the N.O. is invalid.

According to my SSPX pastor, who refers to St. Thomas Aquinas, the Sacrament has already been consecrated BEFORE we arrive at the words “pro multis”. If a priest died before he could finish saying “for all” or “for many” would anyone feel the liberty to throw the Hosts in the garbage or the Precious Blood down the drain? NO! Never. “This is the cup of my blood”, effects the consecration! What follows explains what it does, but is not essential to the form. “Pro multis” is certainly welcome as being an accurate translation, but the inaccurate translation was never an obstacle to formal validity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why preach onto deaf ears? If they are convinced of their error, no explanation will suffice. Smile, turn around, dust off your sandals, and walk away.

 

[Planty_Pall]

Anyone who’s posted here for some time should already know that the counter-argument cannot be posted, because it’s either explicitly or implicitly (i.e. criticism of Vatican II) against the rules, and the poster in question will be given an infraction. So, posting the topic here ensures that only a pro-NO/Vatican II answer will be given… so take from that what you will.

God bless!

P.S. - My post reflects the experience I’ve had here on this forum (I have several infractions to my credit).

I have very little respect for this forum. I have received infraction for “lack of charity” for intimating that some who are in communion with Rome agree with the SSPX but fear to say so. But count me “pro-NO” if it is “pro-NO” to believe that the forms are valid.

 

[ProVobis]

According to my SSPX pastor, who refers to St. Thomas Aquinas, the Sacrament has already been consecrated BEFORE we arrive at the words “pro multis”.

I’m not quite sure about that. What if he qualifies the “Hic est enim calix sanguinis” with something like “only for the Polish”?

 

[Monica4316]

This is just my understanding, but it seems to me that the words “for all” wouldn’t invalidate the Consecration, though they might perhaps lessen graces in the Mass. (this could be argued. It’s not an anti-NO statement because the English translation is changing anyway to “for many”).

 

[ProVobis]

But count me “pro-NO” if it is “pro-NO” to believe that the forms are valid.

But how many of those who attend the “NO” only believe in the validity of the commemoration and the meal?

 

[OraLabora]

I think Archbishop Lefebvre said that sometimes in the NO there is no Consecration because the priest might not believe in the Real Presence or transubstantiation

How could Lefebvre know for certain that a priest at the EF believes in the Real Presence or transubstantiation?

It would surprise me greatly to learn that priests going through deep doubts only started to exist after Vatican II…

 

[Planty_Pall]

I’m not quite sure about that. What if he qualifies the “Hic est enim calix sanguinis” with something like “only for the Polish”?

Hi Pro Vobis.

Here is the deal. The original post proposes that Abp. Lefebvre doubted the essential form of the Novus Ordo Mass. I suggest they were mistaken. I contend that this claim is unsubstantiated. I cite as evidence to the contrary what my priest, ordained by Abp. Lefebvre teaches. Opposition to the reformed liturgy does not necessarily go so far as to affirm formal invalidity. I can provide documentation privately at a later time if necessary. I hesitate to put much energy into any postings here because it seems to me that posts disappear at a rate increasing according to the amount of time and effort spent in composition.

A qualifier such as, “for all,” which is according to the vernacular text, when the Church has approved the text, does not give indication that the priest fails in intention. He “intends to do what the Church does”. If he adds his own words and wacky ideas to the consecration, I would agree that we might have grounds for doubt about intention. If a priest perists in continuing to say “for all”, knowing that the approved translation has changed to “for many” might cause grounds for doubt of proper intent in the future. Clearly though, the problem, even with “only for the Polish”, if so crazy an aberration was ever made, would not be invalid because of a problem with the essential form, but rather, the intent of the minister would be in question. But when the priest observes the essential form, while maintaining approved texts either in vernacular or original, there is no reason to doubt the minister’s intention to observe the rite of the Church.

 

[JReducation]

How could Lefebvre know for certain that a priest at the EF believes in the Real Presence or transubstantiation?

It would surprise me greatly to learn that priests going through deep doubts only started to exist after Vatican II…

Martin Luther was a Canon and a priest. He came long before Vatican I, II and III.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Hi Pro Vobis.

Here is the deal. The original post proposes that Abp. Lefebvre doubted the essential form of the Novus Ordo Mass. I suggest they were mistaken. I contend that this claim is unsubstantiated. I cite as evidence to the contrary what my priest, ordained by Abp. Lefebvre teaches. Opposition to the reformed liturgy does not necessarily go so far as to affirm formal invalidity. I can provide documentation privately at a later time if necessary. I hesitate to put much energy into any postings here because it seems to me that posts disappear at a rate increasing according to the amount of time and effort spent in composition.

A qualifier such as, “For all,” which is according to the vernacular text, when the Church has approvged the text, does not give indication that the priest fails in intention. He “intends to do what the Church does”. If he adds his own words and wacky ideas to the consecration, I would agree that we might have grounds for doubt about intention. Even so, I would still treat the Sacred Species as thought they were validly consecrated. But when the priest observes the essential form, while maintaining approved texts, there is no reason to doubt the minister’s intention to observe the rite of the Church.

 

[mick321]

…how do you reply? I prefer the traditional Mass and I disagree with some changes in the Novus Ordo (like removing altar rails, etc) - and the TLM seems more reverent to me… but I still consider the Novus Ordo to be valid and to have a valid Eucharist. If another traditionalist person tells you that the NO doesn’t have the Eucharist, - what do you say, what reasons would you give that it is valid?

I think Archbishop Lefebvre said that sometimes in the NO there is no Consecration because the priest might not believe in the Real Presence or transubstantiation and the wording doesn’t make it as clear as the TLM. (in the TLM, the wording is very clear). However it seems to me that today, mostly all priests do believe in the Real Presence. Has the situation changed?

thank you

A declaration that every Nouus Ordo Consecration is invalid on its face is factually incorrect.

Just the same, find out exactly what your boy is talking about. Nail him down. What did you see? Where did it occur? When? Are you sure it was a Catholic Church? What was the priest’s name? How do you know he was a priest? And so on…

Then give the “truth” a rest and deal with the facts.

Most of all, keep your mind open to the possibility that this person was actually a first hand witness to an abuse so egregious, that the validity of Consecration was cast into doubt. If so, condemn the abuse and move on.

Never, NEVER defend liturgical abuse to a fellow Catholic.

 

[ProVobis]

Here is the deal. The original post proposes that Abp. Lefebvre doubted the essential form of the Novus Ordo Mass. I suggest they were mistaken.

Good post but the question I would have then is this — did the AB approve of the Old Mass with the “for all” and/or vernacular in the various canons used BEFORE the New Mass was promulgated in 1970? Or did he just disapprove of the NO because it was the NO?

 

[Planty_Pall]

Good post but the question I would have then is this — did the AB approve of the Old Mass with the “for all” and/or vernacular in the various canons used BEFORE the New Mass was promulgated in 1970? Or did he just disapprove of the NO because it was the NO?

To say that a Sacrament is valid still allows for disapproval on other grounds. I am saying that detractors of Archbishop Lefebvre should understand this. There seems to be a presumption in many circles that if a Mass is valid, there can be no grounds for objection.

“For all” is in an inaccurate translation of the Latin Novus Ordo. That would be grounds for objection. The various canons seem to obscure certain important truths that are clearer in the Roman canon. They do not invalidate. Valid Sacraments are compatible with inaccurate translations and theological imprecision in all parts of the rite except the essential forms. They may still be criticized and objected to on those grounds however since such prayers inform or possibly fail to inform our Catholic faith adequately. That Lex Orendi Lex Credendi (sp.?) principle.

 

[agnes_therese]

Many sedevacantists seem to believe that some priests who celebrate the OF do not intend to consecrate.

I would ask how they are able to read these priests’ minds.

 

[ProVobis]

To say that a Sacrament is valid still allows for disapproval on other grounds. I am saying that detractors of Archbishop Lefebvre should understand this. There seems to be a presumption in many circles that if a Mass is valid, there can be no grounds for objection.

“For all” is in an inaccurate translation of the Latin Novus Ordo.

So you know, I’m not an AL detractor but I still have this lingering question for anyone who knew him. By 1967, the English words were changed to “for all men” BEFORE the New Mass was promulgated. In 1967 there were also many canons used (I heard estimates of 20 in France alone). Do you know if AL approved of the Old Mass with all these options (I’m not sure if he was even aware of THE English anomalies)?

 

[ProVobis]

… Real Presence or transubstantiation and the wording doesn’t make it as clear as the TLM. (in the TLM, the wording is very clear).

Aside from the “pro multis” issue, the Latin NO also makes it clear. When the priests says “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” it can only mean one thing, that this “hoc” (neuter, singular) is already the Corpus “Body” (neuter, singular) of Christ and not the bread anymore. It is no longer the panem “bread” (masculine, singular) because that would require the Latin to be “Hic est enim Corpus Meum.” The English consecration seems to lead one to think that “this” is still the bread and thus Consubstantiation has occured rather than Transubstantiation.

 

[Monica4316]

Aside from the “pro multis” issue, the Latin NO also makes it clear. When the priests says “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” it can only mean one thing, that this “hoc” (neuter, singular) is already the Corpus “Body” (neuter, singular) of Christ and not the bread anymore. It is no longer the panem “bread” (masculine, singular) because that would require the Latin to be “Hic est enim Corpus Meum.” The English consecration seems to lead one to think that “this” is still the bread and thus Consubstantiation has occured rather than Transubstantiation.

I don’t really understand what you mean… ? I wouldn’t say that the English translation implies consubstantiation… I mean, the priest doesn’t say “this bread is My Body”, he says “this is My Body”. Can you clarify what you meant?

 

[Planty_Pall]

So you know, I’m not an AL detractor but I still have this lingering question for anyone who knew him. By 1967, the English words were changed to “for all men” BEFORE the New Mass was promulgated. In 1967 there were also many canons used (I heard estimates of 20 in France alone). Do you know if AL approved of the Old Mass with all these options (I’m not sure if he was even aware of THE English anomalies)?

I would have to check on that. Michael Davies’ three volume Apologia skips pretty quickly to the 1970’s. I have read Bp. De Mallerais’ biography but I don’t own it. It was a library book. It seems unlikely that if Abp. Lefebvre refused to say the New Mass when it was promulgated, that he would have chosen to observe similar reforms when they were optional. You have me wondering about what he thought when those first changes came though. Whoever of us finds out anything should send a private message to the other, eh?

I am on vacation…leaving today…so I won’t have access to the church library until next week. I wasn’t thinking you were a detractor, Pro Vobis.

PP

 

[JReducation]

So you know, I’m not an AL detractor but I still have this lingering question for anyone who knew him. By 1967, the English words were changed to “for all men” BEFORE the New Mass was promulgated. In 1967 there were also many canons used (I heard estimates of 20 in France alone). Do you know if AL approved of the Old Mass with all these options (I’m not sure if he was even aware of THE English anomalies)?

Even if the Archbishop had known of the English translation, he was not in a position of authority to say that this consecration was invalid. For example, the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari does not contain the words of institution at all. However, Bl. John Paul ruled

"The words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession".

What the Holy See is looking for is fidelity to the tradition, matter and intent, as is evidence in this statement. This does not mean that we can change the words by our own volition. You’re not to get creative. The Church gives you the text and follow it. It is up to the Holy See to approve the translation.

In the case of “for all” the translation was approved by the proper ecclesial authorities. It’s not being changed back to “for the many” because “for all” makes the consecration invalid. It’s being changed back to the ancient wording to make it consistent with the words of Scripture. The wording that is currently in use does not render the consecration invalid. No bishop has the authority to say that it does so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t really understand what you mean… ? I wouldn’t say that the English translation implies consubstantiation… I mean, the priest doesn’t say “this bread is My Body”, he says “this is My Body”. Can you clarify what you meant?

I didn’t say it was invalid. You’re right he doesn’t say “this bread is My body.” But I merely suggested that it could easily be implied, seeing the priest hold the host while saying it. It’s good that you don’t believe that part of it. The point, however, is that the overuse of the demonstrative pronoun in the English can lead to confusion. Compare that with the different forms in the Latin to clarify: hic haec hoc huius huic hunc hanc hac hi hae horum harum his hos has.