Mysterium Fidei

[SFD]

It’s not the Lateran Council but Pope Innocent III. There are in fact, many writings which claim that the words were taught by tradition, or even Apostolic tradition (though, note, that the Catechism of Trent differs from this in that it purposely does not directly state this.).
Catechism of Council of Trent:

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. Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

There is a huge difference between saying the above “falls short of a definition by the Church” and saying “it is or may be wrong”.

Do you realise the gravity of what you are implying, AJV?

That was how they reasoned that words not in Scripture were in the form.

And YOU think maybe THEY were wrong?

But likewise, they taught that certain other things were apostolic, or speculated on things that happened at the Last Supper, which ultimately turned out not to be so - one can think of, for example, the sacrament of ordination or the controversy of the first consecration by Christ.

Source for this please?

SFD

 

[cam100]

This is all very interesting but fails to address the following, which I quoted earlier:

SFD

OK, let’s break it down.
First, neither the your quote from the Catechism of Council of Trent nor your quote from the Third Lateran Council actually says that Christ spoke the words “Mysterium Fidei” in exactly the same place as they appear in the Tridentine canon. Rather, they say that these words are found in an implicit way in the original words, in that “Mysterium Fidei” basically summarizes that what is happening. That is different from saying that Christ himself put them in exactly the same place as they appear in the canon.

Second, the mass of Pope Paul VI also includes these words in the canon! I just explained the fact that the exact placement of these words was not instituted by Christ. So, it is not inconceivable to place them just after the original words of consecration, as they appear in the mass of Pope Paul VI.

Third, if you’re trying to say that the Church taught that the words “Mysterium Fidei” are NECESSARY for a valid consecration, that is incorrect because the Church has long recognized as valid the Eastern liturgies that don’t use these words.

 

[SFD]

OK, let’s break it down.

Okay.

cam100:

First, neither the your quote from the Catechism of Council of Trent nor your quote from the Third Lateran Council actually says that Christ spoke the words “Mysterium Fidei” in exactly the same place as they appear in the Tridentine canon. Rather, they say that these words are found in an implicit way in the original words, in that “Mysterium Fidei” basically summarizes that what is happening. That is different from saying that Christ himself put them in exactly the same place as they appear in the canon.

They are in the Form of the Sacrament as indicated by Trent. What I hear you saying is that the form of the missal of Paul VI contains the essential form, which is “This is my Body; This is my Blood”. Is that correct? And you do realise that this issue (the so-called “short form” validity) has never settled or defined by the Church. It was not until 1967 that this issue became more that just a theoretical question.

Many others hold, however, that the “long form” is actually the entire form. They hold that the words of the sacramental form for the wine-consecration, exactly as laid down in bold print in Missale Romanum, are absolutely necessary for bringing about the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and therefore essential for the celebration of a valid Mass.

An authority of great weight supporting the “entire form” adherents is a preceptive passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is incorporated in the official rubrics accompanying the Roman Missal. In his Bull Quo Primum (1570) Pope St. Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite “in perpetuity,” and the aforementioned “De Defectibus” always appears in the introductory pages of legitimate altar missals.

This salient passage from Part V of De Defectibus reads:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim corpus meum. And: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin gravely.’

SFD

 

[SFD]

Third, if you’re trying to say that the Church taught that the words “Mysterium Fidei” are NECESSARY for a valid consecration, that is incorrect because the Church has long recognized as valid the Eastern liturgies that don’t use these words.

This is incorrect and I know you can’t find any source to support this idea. The form in the Latin rite is not dependent on the form in another rite.

SFD

 

[AJV]

Okay.

They are in the Form of the Sacrament as indicated by Trent. What I hear you saying is that the form of the missal of Paul VI contains the essential form, which is “This is my Body; This is my Blood”. Is that correct? And you do realise that this issue (the so-called “short form” validity) has never settled or defined by the Church. It was not until 1967 that this issue became more that just a theoretical question.

Many others hold, however, that the “long form” is actually the entire form. They hold that the words of the sacramental form for the wine-consecration, exactly as laid down in bold print in Missale Romanum, are absolutely necessary for bringing about the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and therefore essential for the celebration of a valid Mass.
SFD

Leonidas sacerdos indole haesitabundus, saepe verba consecrationis iterat. Ex ipso timore ne omnia non rite pronuntiet, crebros errores seu maiores seu minores admittit. Ita quondam consecrationem sub conditione iteravit quia dixit:…alia die quia omiserat verba “mysterium fidei”…

Solutio: In quattuor illis occasionibus erravit Leonidas dum verba consecrationis iteravit:…(2) Omissio verborum “mysterium fidei” nullam iustam rationem praebet ob quam de valore consecrationis dubitetur. Sane si tota periscopa: “novi et aeterni testamenti…peccatorum” omissa fuerit, opinamur formam esse repetendam

• Fr. Genicot S.J. Casus Conscientiae

Note that while the probable teaching on the long form is upheld, the omission of mysterium fidei is not interpreted as being against that. Thus, it is advised that if only Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei is said, then it should be repeated, but if only mysterium fidei omitted, then not.

 

[AJV]

AJV;4210380:

It’s not the Lateran Council but Pope Innocent III. There are in fact, many writings which claim that the words were taught by tradition, or even Apostolic tradition (though, note, that the Catechism of Trent differs from this in that it purposely does not directly state this.).

There is a huge difference between saying the above “falls short of a definition by the Church” and saying “it is or may be wrong”.

Do you realise the gravity of what you are implying, AJV?

And YOU think maybe THEY were wrong?

Source for this please?

SFD

Obviously, I would not rely on my own knowlege against all of those people. But considering that quite a few people held that most things were apostolic, I do not think that questioning the accuracy of the attribution to the apostles is out.

As for the sources: for example, the scholastics who taught that the instruments were the form justified their teaching by saying that it was handed down by the Apostles and that the words in Scripture referring to the laying on of hands meant that the hands was required only for the integrity. Of course, as soon as the question was re-raised in the 16th century, examination showed that the oldest missals did not contain it, and most post-Tridentine theologians maintianed either a partial matter, or total matter theory regarding the laying on of hands.
Inocent III on the other hand, taught for example, in his work on the Mass, that Christ did not consecrate at the Last Supper by the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”.

The quesiton with “mysterium fidei” is:
(1) how did the mediaevals know that it was from the Apostles? (which again, the Catechism of Trent avoids saying directly)
(2) if it is Apostolic, then why isn;t it in other liturgies? Why didn’t the Church insist that it be inserted in other liturgies, if in relation to fasts, water and wine, and other such minor things deemed apostolic, they were more demanding.

 

[SFD]

Note that while the probable teaching on the long form is upheld, the omission of mysterium fidei is not interpreted as being against that. Thus, it is advised that if only Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei is said, then it should be repeated, but if only mysterium fidei omitted, then not.

That’s not what De Defectibus says:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim corpus meum. And: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin gravely.’

Nor St. Thomas:

The view of St. Thomas on the essential words of the wine-consecration form is stated in 3 different places:

(1) Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum; (2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3) The Summa Theologica.

(1) In Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum (dist. 8, Q. 2, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3):

“And therefore those words which follow [that is, which follow ‘This is the chalice of My Blood’] are essential to the blood, inasmuch as it is consecrated in this sacrament; and therefore they must be of the substance of the form.”

(2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6):

“In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are necessary for the form, but the words ‘This is the chalice of My Blood’ only, not the remainder which follows, ‘of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.’ But it would appear that this is not said correctly, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate [the predicate being ‘This is the chalice of my blood’] : hence those subsequent words belong to the meaning or signification of the same pronouncement. And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of sacraments have their effect, hence all of these words appertain to the effecting power of the form.” (Emphasis added).

(3) In Summa Theologica (III, Q. 78, A. 3):

"I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this 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 * recitation.

“And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this, which belong to the use of the sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands.”*

 

[cam100]

Okay.

They are in the Form of the Sacrament as indicated by Trent. What I hear you saying is that the form of the missal of Paul VI contains the essential form, which is “This is my Body; This is my Blood”. Is that correct?

Not exactly. I’m not trying to precisely define the essential form; I’m just showing that the change in placement of the words “Mysterium Fidei” in the Pauline mass as compared to the Tridentine mass do not constitute a change in essential form. I did this by noting that the placement of these words was not Divinely instituted, and not all valid Catholic liturgies use them.

An authority of great weight supporting the “entire form” adherents is a preceptive passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is incorporated in the official rubrics accompanying the Roman Missal.

De Defectibus doesn’t specify how much a change would actually alter the essential meaning. To get some estimation of this, we can look at how much variation the Church has used in her various liturgies over the centuries. I have already done this, briefly, by showing some examples of ancient forms of the consecration.

 

[cam100]

Third, if you’re trying to say that the Church taught that the words “Mysterium Fidei” are NECESSARY for a valid consecration, that is incorrect because the Church has long recognized as valid the Eastern liturgies that don’t use these words.

I don’t understand why you’re saying this. The source is the ancient liturgies that I linked to earlier, and you could find more if you search further. I don’t understand what you are disputing here. Are you saying that the Latin rite is and has been the only valid rite?

The form in the Latin Rite is related to the form in other rites in that they are all part of the One Catholic Church. In the essential aspects, all valid rites must agree, because they all are part of the same faith. If they differ, it can only be in non-essential elements. Therefore, one way to understand what the Church considers essential, in the big picture, is to examine the variations she permits among the rites.

 

[AJV]

That’s not what De Defectibus says:

Nor St. Thomas:

The view of St. Thomas on the essential words of the wine-consecration form is stated in 3 different places:

The view of Fr. Genicot or Frd. Woywood or Lehmkuhl or any of the other casuitss does not deny the probablity of the long form. Neither does their advice oppose the sense of De Defectibus as they clearly state that should one omit all the words then the consecration should be repeated sub conditione. The omission of “Mysterium Fidei” does not affect the long form. The authors explain that the ommission of these two words neither change the signification, nor do they oppose the determoination fo the predicate.

Tthese books are also books of pastoral theology, not just a theoretical dogmatic volume. In the latter, as you know, authors could freely express their views on a particular opinion, but in the former were referred to for advice in seminaries for actual practise on various issues. Thus they would not be allowed to be printed if they gave credence to one opinion over another probable one, seeing that their answers had possible implications for sacramental validity.

 

[SFD]

AJV:

should one omit all the words then the consecration should be repeated sub conditione.

All the words? Where did you get this?

 

[SFD]

I don’t understand why you’re saying this. The source is the ancient liturgies that I linked to earlier, and you could find more if you search further. I don’t understand what you are disputing here. Are you saying that the Latin rite is and has been the only valid rite?

Not at all.

cam100:

The form in the Latin Rite is related to the form in other rites in that they are all part of the One Catholic Church. In the essential aspects, all valid rites must agree, because they all are part of the same faith. If they differ, it can only be in non-essential elements. Therefore, one way to understand what the Church considers essential, in the big picture, is to examine the variations she permits among the rites.

Is this your argument or did you read this somewhere?

SFD

 

[SFD]

cam100:

Not exactly. I’m not trying to precisely define the essential form; I’m just showing that the change in placement of the words “Mysterium Fidei” in the Pauline mass as compared to the Tridentine mass do not constitute a change in essential form.

De Defectibus says:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim corpus meum. And: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament.

If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin gravely.’

So the form is laid out in De Defectibus…it is not a definition…but it is of great authority. Then no ommission or change in the wording can be tolerated that changes the signification. Then any addition to the form would be valid but gravely sinful.

That’s what it says.

SFD

 

[AJV]

All the words? Where did you get this?

See the source text I posted earlier “Sane si tota periscopa: “novi et aeterni testamenti…peccatorum” omissa fuerit, opinamur formam esse repetendam”

Let me post an English text:

Titius, a priest, somewhat scrupulous by nature, repeats the words of consecration very often in the Mass…Another time he omitted the words “mysterium fidei,” and therefore repeated the whole form. …Titius’s confessor is at a loss as to what judgment he shall pass on Titius.

Solution: Titius did wrong in all four instances, where he repeated the words…2. The omission of the words “mysterium fidei” does not invalidate the form. If all the words beginning with “novi et aeterni” and continuing to the end “peccatorum” were omitted, the form would have to be repeated, because, owing to the opinion of weighty theologians, the form would probably be invalid. But the same cannot be said of the omission of one or two words of consecration, and he merits reproof.

• The Casuist: A Collection of Cases in Moral and Pastoral Theology

 

[cam100]

So the form is laid out in De Defectibus…it is not a definition…but it is of great authority. Then no ommission or change in the wording can be tolerated that changes the signification. Then any addition to the form would be valid but gravely sinful.

That’s what it says.

SFD

Right. I’m not disputing the authority of De Defectibus. I’m trying to show that in order to understand it correctly, you must take other pertinent information into consideration – information that I have presented throughout this thread.

 

[cam100]

cam100;4216207:

The form in the Latin Rite is related to the form in other rites in that they are all part of the One Catholic Church. In the essential aspects, all valid rites must agree, because they all are part of the same faith. If they differ, it can only be in non-essential elements. Therefore, one way to understand what the Church considers essential, in the big picture, is to examine the variations she permits among the rites.

Is this your argument or did you read this somewhere?

SFD

That’s just the logical extension of the Church’s teaching on her unity that I’m using as the basis for my main argument about the words of consecration.

 

[SFD]

That’s just the logical extension of the Church’s teaching on her unity that I’m using as the basis for my main argument about the words of consecration.

So it’s your argument.

SFD

 

[nbjayme]

“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.”

But SFD, they are now into the new thing… CCC …
I don’t know if they are that strong to say the Council of Trent was fallible.
Or would they now say you go against the Magisterium for bringing up the Council of Trent.

God bless!

Just passing by…

---

Remember the bible said, If God is with us who can be against us…

Spend more time in prayer… God will choose the time of liberation.

The Holy men and women sacrificed not simply because of the church but because of the Faith. For those who have the Faith, has the Church.

 

[japhy]

But SFD, they are now into the new thing… CCC …
I don’t know if they are that strong to say the Council of Trent was fallible.
Or would they now say you go against the Magisterium for bringing up the Council of Trent.

Get out of here, you troll.

 

[SFD]

I don’t understand why you’re saying this. The source is the ancient liturgies that I linked to earlier, and you could find more if you search further. I don’t understand what you are disputing here. Are you saying that the Latin rite is and has been the only valid rite?

The form in the Latin Rite is related to the form in other rites in that they are all part of the One Catholic Church. In the essential aspects, all valid rites must agree, because they all are part of the same faith. If they differ, it can only be in non-essential elements. Therefore, one way to understand what the Church considers essential, in the big picture, is to examine the variations she permits among the rites.

This seems reasonable…but it is incorrect. What is essential in the absolute sense is common…that does not mean what is essential in the various rites does not differ at all.

In the Latin Rite the ordinary minister of Confirmation, and the only valid minister (with the exceptions noted immediately below) is a bishop. The extraordinary minister of Confirmation is a priest to whom the faculty to confirm has been given either by common law or by a general or special indult of the Holy See, (according to Canon 782). However, such extraordinary ministers of the Latin Rite (under the same Canon 782), can validly confirm only Catholics of the Latin Rite. Ergo, it is certain that ordinary Latin Rite priests cannot validly administer this Sacrament. Whereas it is a well known fact that in the Oriental rites any priest at all confirms validly and licitly, even Catholics of the Latin Rite.

In the Eastern rites the ordinary valid matter for the Consecration of the Body of Christ is leavened bread. But we know that: “In the Latin Church hosts must be unleavened and circular in form.” A Latin Rite priest cannot consecrate using leavened bread, except under one extraordinary condition: “Leavened bread may be used in the Latin Rite only to complete the Sacrifice already begun.”

SFD