Language of The Last Supper

[EENS]

As far as one book saying something before Vatican II (listing a faulty form of the Consecration of the wine), I am not one of the “traditionalists” who wants to go back to the 1950s… the 1950s were not perfect; they were far from it. In fact, they were the cause for the changes. If it was perfect in the '50s, there wouldn’t have been the same revolution that happened in the '60s (both secular and ecclesiastical). Just because some book from the '50s says something (or even from the 1800s), that mean nothing if it contradicts the Church’s teaching at Florence.

 

[TheGrowingGrape]

Ultratraditionals,

The words necessary for transubstantiation to take place, per the 1955 source I cited are, “This is my body,” “This is my blood.” I feel that the Bishop who citied it’s Imprimatur has greater authority than you, and I choose to believe him rather than you. The source is not in error because Nihil Obstat and Imprimatured writings contain no errors because The Church says so.

My source is correct, and therefore, the only conclusion to make is that Transubstantiation is still effected in the Novus Ordo Missae.

I think it’s really sad that you’d go into schism over synonyms and syllables. You people remind me of the Pharisees.

Actually, “for the many” and “for all” and the “mystery of faith” and the word “cup” replaced for “chalice” are all distractive arguments, for these words have nothing to do with transubtantiation.

If a priest has the Real Presence in his hands and offers it up to God in sacrifice for the remission of sins, and God accepts the sacrifice, which I presume with great probablility that He does in the Novus Ordo Missae, then it is a Mass.

There isn’t anything you can say to me to convince me you’re right because I have a 1955 Dogma book in my hand with an Imprimatur that says YOU are wrong. I think that some of you ultra-traditionalist are so filled with hate for everything Novus Ordo that you would go so far as to make up your own dogma just to seduce us Novus Ordo Catholics into joining your rebellion.

You probably think we don’t know our dogma. You probably think we don’t know the history of the Church or the Mass. You probably think we don’t read the writings of the Saints or say the Rosary anymore. This may be true with many Catholics. But for the few faithful who remain, despite attacks from both modernists and traditionalists, we still perservere in all of these things and are showered with blessings and graces that you will, unfortunately, probably never know.

I’ve been there, done that. The only fruit I saw of SSPX was complaining, complaining, complaining. SSPX had no bible studies, prayer groups, or groups studying the Saints! The only literature in their bookstore was anti-Novus Ordo literature, anti-Semitic literature, and literature, basically, focused on complaining about Rome. There were no prayer books or books on the Saints for sale there. It was a very negative, repressive atmosphere, and I’m glad I left.

BOTH the ultra-traditionalists and the ultra-modernists are BOTH ravenous sharks that take great pleasure in nibbing away at what’s left of the true faithful. YOU are just as much culpable for hurting The Church as your modernist counterpart.

I have no problem with the Tridentene Mass. I loved it. But I must obey the Pope and stay away from the likes of you. Actually, in my opinion, the Vatican II Latin Indult is even better than the Tridentene and the Novus Ordo Missae. It’s interesting that “for Many” and “mystery of faith” are in the accompanying English translation for that particular Mass. Did you know that? I don’t remember if “chalice” or “cup” is in the accompanying English translation … but since a chalice and a cup are the same thing, who cares.

And I will say no more with regards to this argument.

I would still welcome discourse, however, on the ORIGINAL topic. Thanks.

 

[philipmarus]

I do not consider myself a ultratraditional simply because I think the Tridentine mass better reflects catholic doctrine. I attend a Norvus Ordo most of the time. I have to drive 50 miles to attend a Tridentine Indult offered by my Bishop. I’ve read the Reminant Resistance and I find it to be too angry for my taste to read. I do not support SSPX in any way shape or form.

Someone mentioned the book HOW CHRIST SAID THE FIRST MASS. This not just a book for ultra-traditionalists. My Dad (d. 2002) taught RCIA for years at Novus Ordo for years who never was a Tridentine Latin Mass disciple. He simply taught orthodox Catholicism in the Novus ordo and that book was among the ones he used as I inherited it . Unfortunately, my late father had to co-teach RCIA throughout the (1980s and 1990s) in a East Coast parish with a woman that was always pushing Women’s ordination thing in the RCIA classes he taught. He had to continually fight against people like her in Post-Vatican II church where he taught that were trying to indoctrinate the next generation of Catholics into thinking “the church will change soon and Women will be ordained soon so we need start getting ready for it” . I could name names on this point. I’m sure she had no problem with the new mass as translated and probaly a good amount of hostility to the old mass.

The banquet aspect is overemphasized in the new mass and it doesn’t make me a ulltratraditionalist to think so. Just because a mediocre ICEL translation is valid (ie, Transubstantiation occurs)does not mean we have to settle for a mediocre translation. And neither does Rome as their 2001 document Liturgiam Authenticam indicates.

 

[EENS]

TheGrowingGrape:

Ultratraditionals,

The words necessary for transubstantiation to take place, per the 1955 source I cited are, “This is my body,” “This is my blood.” I feel that the Bishop who citied it’s Imprimatur has greater authority than you, and I choose to believe him rather than you. The source is not in error because Nihil Obstat and Imprimatured writings contain no errors because The Church says so.

It’s not a Bishop vs.me… it is a Bishop vs. the infallible Church teaching from Florence. Moreover, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur mean that the one who approves it says it is without error. That doesn’t mean the CHURCH says it is without error. There are a lot of Bishops who don’t teach what the Church teaches… esp. today. Some of the most obvious occurences: pro-abortion, Bibled erred, pro-homosexual, pro-feminist, etc.

My source is correct, and therefore, the only conclusion to make is that Transubstantiation is still effected in the Novus Ordo Missae.

My source isn’t correct, then? (That is, you believe the Bishop trumps the infallible declaration of Florence?)

I think it’s really sad that you’d go into schism over synonyms and syllables. You people remind me of the Pharisees.

I’m not in schism. I simply stated the Church’s teaching at Florence (unless you claim all the Fathers of Florence were schismatics, too…)

Actually, “for the many” and “for all” and the “mystery of faith” and the word “cup” replaced for “chalice” are all distractive arguments, for these words have nothing to do with transubtantiation.

According to what? You? The Council of Florence says the WORDS OF CHRIST (which are the words of the Canon) ARE THE FORM. The translation of cup is not the problem. The others are problematic.

If a priest has the Real Presence in his hands and offers it up to God in sacrifice for the remission of sins, and God accepts the sacrifice, which I presume with great probablility that He does in the Novus Ordo Missae, then it is a Mass.

Of course, but the debate is in whether or not the new conscration fulfills the form of the Sacrament.

There isn’t anything you can say to me to convince me you’re right because I have a 1955 Dogma book in my hand with an Imprimatur that says YOU are wrong. I think that some of you ultra-traditionalist are so filled with hate for everything Novus Ordo that you would go so far as to make up your own dogma just to seduce us Novus Ordo Catholics into joining your rebellion.

I am sorry, but this is just laughable.

You probably think we don’t know our dogma. You probably think we don’t know the history of the Church or the Mass. You probably think we don’t read the writings of the Saints or say the Rosary anymore. This may be true with many Catholics. But for the few faithful who remain, despite attacks from both modernists and traditionalists, we still perservere in all of these things and are showered with blessings and graces that you will, unfortunately, probably never know.

Typical… you judge what I “probably” think, based upon absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that in any way.

I’ve been there, done that. The only fruit I saw of SSPX was complaining, complaining, complaining. SSPX had no bible studies, prayer groups, or groups studying the Saints! The only literature in their bookstore was anti-Novus Ordo literature, anti-Semitic literature, and literature, basically, focused on complaining about Rome. There were no prayer books or books on the Saints for sale there. It was a very negative, repressive atmosphere, and I’m glad I left.

I am not SSPX, but it is simply a lie that they don’t have books on the Saints, on prayer, etc. Do you know what Angelus Press is? That is the SSPX printing company. They have many, many. many good books on Saints, prayer, the Mass, devotions, etc. As far as “bible studies”… we aren’t protestants, and we don’t personally interpret the Bible. It’s not the layman’s place to study the Bible.

BOTH the ultra-traditionalists and the ultra-modernists are BOTH ravenous sharks that take great pleasure in nibbing away at what’s left of the true faithful. YOU are just as much culpable for hurting The Church as your modernist counterpart.

Again with the judging… you determine that I am culpable for the problems in the Church. You don’t know me. You have read a few posts I have made on a forum… and you think the “traditionalists” are the ones that are judgmental? Please…

[see next post]

 

[EENS]

I have no problem with the Tridentene Mass. I loved it. But I must obey the Pope and stay away from the likes of you.

So you left the TLM because the Pope “requires” that you stay away from those who want to attend Mass as he desires by the Indult of Ecclesia Dei (i.e. me)? That is quite illogical.

Actually, in my opinion, the Vatican II Latin Indult is even better than the Tridentene and the Novus Ordo Missae.

I thought you said you know the Mass? I don’t know how a person who has studied the Mass can say the NO is anything but a de-Catholicizing of the Mass, making it more protestant, taking out what had developed by the power of the Holy Ghost through Tradition of 1900 years (which really started in the 50s with the changes to Holy Week).

It’s interesting that “for Many” and “mystery of faith” are in the accompanying English translation for that particular Mass. Did you know that?

I know that the Latin NO uses “pro multis”, which is the correct usage. I don’t think it has Mysterium fidei as a part of the Consecration; I think it is said immediately after the Consecration, but as long as the words are said (and since especially right after the Consecration–and so long as the priest is still holding the Host), then it is valid.

I don’t remember if “chalice” or “cup” is in the accompanying English translation … but since a chalice and a cup are the same thing, who cares.

It doesn’t matter what the translation says if it is said in Latin… the Sacrament is contingent upon the words said by the Priest, not whatever happens to be a translation in a certain missal.

And I will say no more with regards to this argument.

I would still welcome discourse, however, on the ORIGINAL topic. Thanks.

So you wanted to rant, rave, judge, etc. and still have the last word… no dice.

 

[Genesis315]

EENS,

I am trying to understand your argument. I just have a couple questions (sorry if I make you repeat yourself):

1)Are you claiming that the consecration is invalid if it is not in Latin?

2)If the “mystery of faith” part was crucial, why was it left out of the Gospels? I know St. Luke left out the “for many” altogether. Wouldn’t the authors of the Gospels know how crucial the words were? If so why would Luke, for example, leave out the “for many”?

Thanks!

 

[EENS]

1. I have not completely come to that conclusion yet, but what I have read seems to indicate that most strongly. For that reason, I mentioned what I had read from the Council of Florence here regarding the FORM of the Sacrament (which cannot be changed by the Church).
2. According to Pope Innocent III: “Cum Marthae circa” Nov. 29, 1202, saying: “You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of the words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the body and blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which one of the Evangelists is read to have expressed. …In the Canon of the Mass that expressed ‘mysterium fidei’ is found interposed among His words. …Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed.” I think this is a sufficient explanation; they did not intend to write every single thing Christ did. Moreover, I have heard another explanation. In the early Church the words of Consecration were considered so sacred, they were not even written down at all. Afterward, they began to be written but only with gold writing. That is why the entire words were not inculded (which would also imply that only the words found in the Gospels would not constitute to the form, since these words were written down). Moreover, St. John explains in his Gospel that “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. … But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.” (St. John xxi.25, xx.31)

God bless.

 

[EENS]

Bump to Gen 315

 

[Genesis315]

EENS:

Bump to Gen 315

I got your ps from the other thread. I was wondering what the above quote meant. I wasn’t really looking to debate, but I just wanted clarity on your position on Latin. Likewise, the other question about the Gospels just stuck out as a problem spot to your argument.

As for the Latin, i’d have to see what launguages the early churches used especially the eastern and greek ones. Likewise, when Trent allowed other rites to continue, if those rites were in other languages than latin, it might hurt that argument. Also, i’d like to see what all the other valid rites’ words of consecration are throughout history. The thing is, for something to be infallibly stated, it has to have been true always and everywhere.

I looked up the Byzantine liturgy and it does not contain the “mystery of faith” part. Does this make the Byzantine rite invalid then? This is the only form of it I could find. Has it changed over time?

byzantines.net/liturgy/liturgy.htm

As for your other arguments, I haven’t had a chance to look at the documents you mentioned and their context. It’s very interesting argument though. I’ve never heard about no one wanting to right down Jesus’ words before. Where did you read that?

 

[EENS]

I simply meant that I was ‘bumping’ the thread for you to respond, if you wanted to (moving the thread up in the list of topics, so you could find it w/o going through hundreds of topics).

I do not claim it must be in Latin to be valid. That is not my argument at all. My argument was the non-Latin translations of the new Mass omit the correct usage of “for many”, substituting the incorrect “for all”.

As far as the Gospels, I included what the Popes have said in the past. Did you get that comment? I believe it was from Pope Innocent III.

In regard to writing down the words of Christ, it was not that the authors did not want to write down His Words, it was that they did not want to write down the Words of the Consecration, since they were so sacred. It could be compared to how Jews do not write down the God (they write G-d instead). Eventually, it was decided that this is not something that was absolutely necessary; it was simply a devotion of some. I can’t remember where exactly I read it, it was from an article about the history of the Mass.

As far as the Eastern Rites that don’t contain “Mysterium Fidei”, I don’t know really what to say about that. I am simply saying that the Council of Florence said that the form (the necessary words for the Sacrament) for the Eucharist are the words of Christ (which it defines as the same words used in the Canon, that is, the same used in the Traditional Mass, as well). Florence also abrogated any Eastern Rites, but these were brought back because of the laicism practiced (the Bishops went back to the people and told them that they were going to use the Latin Rite, and the people revolted–the beginnings of the laicism that plague the Church today).

In any event, if you are not loking for a debate, that is fine. I just thought you wanted to saying something else. God bless.

 

[pnewton]

EENS:

I In regard to writing down the words of Christ, it was not that the authors did not want to write down His Words, it was that they did not want to write down the Words of the Consecration, since they were so sacred.

Is there any evidence of this? If not arguement from silence could work either way. (i.e. it must not have been all that critical)

While we are back to the topic, does anyone know the earliest writing of the words of the Mass?

 

[Genesis315]

EENS:

I simply meant that I was ‘bumping’ the thread for you to respond, if you wanted to (moving the thread up in the list of topics, so you could find it w/o going through hundreds of topics).

I do not claim it must be in Latin to be valid. That is not my argument at all. My argument was the non-Latin translations of the new Mass omit the correct usage of “for many”, substituting the incorrect “for all”.

As far as the Gospels, I included what the Popes have said in the past. Did you get that comment? I believe it was from Pope Innocent III.

In regard to writing down the words of Christ, it was not that the authors did not want to write down His Words, it was that they did not want to write down the Words of the Consecration, since they were so sacred. It could be compared to how Jews do not write down the God (they write G-d instead). Eventually, it was decided that this is not something that was absolutely necessary; it was simply a devotion of some. I can’t remember where exactly I read it, it was from an article about the history of the Mass.

As far as the Eastern Rites that don’t contain “Mysterium Fidei”, I don’t know really what to say about that. I am simply saying that the Council of Florence said that the form (the necessary words for the Sacrament) for the Eucharist are the words of Christ (which it defines as the same words used in the Canon, that is, the same used in the Traditional Mass, as well). Florence also abrogated any Eastern Rites, but these were brought back because of the laicism practiced (the Bishops went back to the people and told them that they were going to use the Latin Rite, and the people revolted–the beginnings of the laicism that plague the Church today).

In any event, if you are not loking for a debate, that is fine. I just thought you wanted to saying something else. God bless.

Hahaha, well, this is really interesting so I’ll discuss some more:

See the one thing that keeps jumping out at me is whether the Eastern Rites before Florence were valid. If they were and Florence said that only the “mystery of faith” wording was valid, thus making the eastern rites invalid, that would seem to be changing the deposit of faith. Does the council have the authority to say a once valid consecration is no longer so?

I’m not sure if a council has that authority. And I’m pretty sure the eastern rites would have been seen as valid before Florence.

My understanding is that infallibility deals only with the deposit of faith and morals, which is unchanging. Something must be true always and everywhere. I’m not sure if “mystery of faith” being necessary for consecration is something that has been true always and everywhere.

These are just the major red flags that went up as I read your argument. Any thoughts?

 

[EENS]

Genesis315:

Hahaha, well, this is really interesting so I’ll discuss some more:

See the one thing that keeps jumping out at me is whether the Eastern Rites before Florence were valid. If they were and Florence said that only the “mystery of faith” wording was valid, thus making the eastern rites invalid, that would seem to be changing the deposit of faith. Does the council have the authority to say a once valid consecration is no longer so?

I’m not sure if a council has that authority. And I’m pretty sure the eastern rites would have been seen as valid before Florence.

My understanding is that infallibility deals only with the deposit of faith and morals, which is unchanging. Something must be true always and everywhere. I’m not sure if “mystery of faith” being necessary for consecration is something that has been true always and everywhere.

These are just the major red flags that went up as I read your argument. Any thoughts?

You are right that a Council cannot change the Form of the Sacrament (declare a certain Mass invalid because of the Words of Consecration) after it had already been decided. Moreover, the Church Herself CANNOT change the Form of any of the Sacraments (since they were all instituted by Christ). Christ decided the Form of the Sacraments. The Church can add words to the Form in the celebration of a Sacrament, but if anything is detracted from the form, the Sacrament cannot exist.

It seems that Mysterium Fidei could not be a part of the necessary form, sicne the Eastern Rites do not have it. Just because they are abrogated by the Council of Florence would not mean they were invalid before then, of course, as you pointed out.

I have read in somewhere that there are both necessary and unnecessary parts of the words for a Sacrament (e.g. the Offertory is not necessary to have a valid Consecration; the exorcisms before Baptism are not necessary for a valid Baptism–only “I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”). I guess it must be supposed that Mysterium Fidei is a part of the Words of Consecration that is not necessary to the Form; this seems hard ot reconcile to the Council of Florence, though… anyway, I suppose we need someone more educated with this to settle the dispute.