Mystery of Faith

[MTD]

ThereCanBeOnly1,

May I ask you: are you trying to show that the formula of consecration of the Pauline Rite is invalid because of the absence of Mystery of Faith in that formula?

Maria

 

[Uxor]

Logical fallacy: Guilt by Association*.

Pope Innocent may have personally believed Christ spoke those words, Popes being as susceptable to the pious legends of the middle ages as anyone else. There is nothing wrong with that belief, I just find it unlikely. He is ignoring the eastern practice…and making a claim based on no information but what he feels “should” be true (in an age when many later-added traditions, like “mysterium fidei” from the 400’s, were attributed to the apostles or even Christ himself…which they don’t have to be, that’s the point of tradition, it develops gradually and organically). A pope 1000 years after Christ has no more special information that would prove Christ said it than we do today. Innocent was no more present at the original last supper than I was, he was not making an infallible statement, and popes cannot just make something up new…they only have authority over things already Revealed, which these words were not.

Still, I think that simply being traditional, it should have been left in.

popes cannot just make something up new…they only have authority over things already Revealed, which these words were not.

I agree the NO Mass is a good example.

 

[Uxor]

ThereCanBeOnly1,

May I ask you: are you trying to show that the formula of consecration of the Pauline Rite is invalid because of the absence of Mystery of Faith in that formula?

Marai

I’m not saying that, I saw in your first post to me from your statement you thought I was implying that but it wasn’t my intention at all or do I think that…

 

[MTD]

MTD:

ThereCanBeOnly1,

May I ask you: are you trying to show that the formula of consecration of the Pauline Rite is invalid because of the absence of Mystery of Faith in that formula?

Marai

I’m not saying that, I saw in your first post to me from your statement you thought I was implying that but it wasn’t my intention at all or do I think that…

Uxor, I actually addressed that question to ThereCanBeOnly1, not you.

BTW, I answered your question about what the Mystery of Faith is; have you anything to say in response?

Maria

 

[Uxor]

Let me clarify for you because I see that you are of the view of Sola Scriptura:

Mystery of Faith:

Pope Innocent III and the Canon of the Mass also tell us that the words “mysterium fidei” were given by Jesus Christ Himself.

Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202, in response to a question about the form of the Eucharist and the inclusion of ‘mysterium fidei’: "You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of 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 none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed… In the Canon of the Mass that expression, ‘mysterium fidei,’ is found interposed among His words… Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed… Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as they are found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."(Denzinger 414-415.)

I hope this clarifies your Sola Scriptura view. Please by all means confirm this on your own accord.

The words “the mystery of faith” in the consecration are a clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These words were also removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer in his 1549 Anglican Prayer book because of their clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 306.)
*Are you in agreement with Michael Davies the heretic?
*

Thank-you ThereCanBeOnly1. I have prayed and prayed about this.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Uxor, I actually addressed that question to ThereCanBeOnly1, not you.

BTW, I answered your question about what the Mystery of Faith is; have you anything to say in response?

Maria

Please review the references cited by Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202 on my previous reply. I believe what he said, do you? Make your comment with reference to what He stated.

 

[batteddy]

I agree the NO Mass is a good example.

I don’t like the NO, but I think you are out of line here.

I love the Tridentine Mass, but the idea that it was largely handed down by the apostles in all its particulars is not historically supported. It took at least 4 or 5 centuries to take on recognizable form, and continued growing organically. It is a sort of pious pride in an Rite (and it is actually more common in the East) to attribute the rite to an Apostle as having largely composed it. In reality, these things developed over time. The form of the Tridentine Mass was certainly not a subject of Public Revelation.

I meant more along the lines of…the Pope is not the author of the Faith. He is not like a crystal ball, he cannot provide NEW information to the “pi-cur-ious” (pious-curious). He can only definitively settle questions of things Revealed, of the contents of divine faith.

Popes could answer our questions about Christ’s hair-colour, favorite psalm, education, and height until the cows come home. But their opinion on these matters are no more authoritative than anyone else’s, because such things are not the subject of Revelation. Niether is the “mysterium fidei,” which even if Christ spoke…it is not a subject of Revelation that he did. We cannot invoke infallibility to answer questions not already answered. We cannot say, “I want to know about Christ’s hidden life…so let’s ask the Pope to tell us stories about it ex cathedra” as if we could somehow divine or derive new truths that way.

Infallibility has a scope limited to the deposit of faith. Otherwise we would be like Mormons with new doctrines constantly being added, new chapters of the faith constantly being written, the body of dogma constantly expanding.

Infallibility is a charism in the negative, meaning he won’t contradict anything Revealed. But that doesn’t mean he will always positively speak truth, especially in making unofficial claims about things not revealed. He is protected from harming the revelation that is already there, he is not a machine that can crank out new revelations.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Cramner removed mysterium fidei totally. And what you have quoted is not in Davies book. What he says is that *Mysterium Fidei *is removed and then he says that benedicere/benedexit was removed because *that *implied trasubstatiation . He does not say why mysterium fidei was removed.At least, this is as far as I can see so if I’m missing somethign please correct me…

I stand by my understanding of the heretic Cramner.
Maybe you will find this; Michael Davies agreed: “It is beyond dispute that… the Roman Rite has been destroyed.”(Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 504.).

 

[MTD]

Please review the references cited by Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202 on my previous reply. I believe what he said, do you? Make your comment with reference to what He stated.

One of the rules of these forums is not to answer a question with a question. It appeared to me that you were arguing the invalidity of the formula of consecration in the Pauline Rite, but I couldn’t be sure. However, since you won’t give me an answer, I’m going to assume that you are arguing its invalidity.

In order to have a fruitful debate, we need to be honest and open. We need to face questions squarely and truthfully. I will answer your questions and I ask that you do the same for me.

I believe what he said, do you? Make your comment with reference to what He stated.

No, I don’t believe it because 1) I’m not required to since he wasn’t speaking infallibly, 2) I don’t believe Jesus would have said that, and 3) Scripture and the witness of the Eastern rites strongly indicate that Jesus didn’t say it.

Now I ask a question and beg you to answer it: Do you believe the formulae of consecration in the Eastern rites are invalid because they lack Mystery of Faith?

Maria

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why were the words “Mystery of Faith” removed from the Consecration in the NOM and the meaning changed?

The words “Mysterium Fidei” were originally said by the deacon - like “Holy things for the holy”, in one of the other rites.​

They do not necessarily, or properly, form part of the formula of consecration; which is complete without them. They are in origin an announcement for the attention of the people; not part of the words of consecration. So they can be taken from the words said by the priest, without affecting the consecration.

Hope that helps ##

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

One of the rules of these forums is not to answer a question with a question. It appeared to me that you were arguing the invalidity of the formula of consecration in the Pauline Rite, but I couldn’t be sure. However, since you won’t give me an answer, I’m going to assume that you are arguing its invalidity.

In order to have a fruitful debate, we need to be honest and open. We need to face questions squarely and truthfully. I will answer your questions and I ask that you do the same for me.

No, I don’t believe it because 1) I’m not required to since he wasn’t speaking infallibly, 2) I don’t believe Jesus would have said that, and 3) Scripture and the witness of the Eastern rites strongly indicate that Jesus didn’t say it.

Now I ask a question and beg you to answer it: Do you believe the formulae of consecration in the Eastern rites are invalid because they lack Mystery of Faith?

Maria

Here is my answer, (Regarding Mystery of Faith)

The problem with the validity of the New Mass comes with the form, those words necessary to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The form necessary to confect the Eucharist in the Roman Rite was declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581; Denzinger 715. )

In Pope St. Pius V’s Decree De Defectibus, we find the same words repeated: Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”(A common translation, found in many publications, of the Latin words from the Roman Altar Missal, in De Defectibus, Chap. 5, Part 1. )
As you can see St Pope Pius V is very clear, if the Eastern Rites
are not of the above stated form, then they do not confect the same sacrament. I agree with this form.
This teaching appeared in the front of every Roman Altar Missal from 1570 to 1962. We can see that the same words mentioned by the Council of Florence are declared to be necessary by Pope St. Pius V. This is why all of these words of consecration are bolded in Traditional Roman Altar Missals, and why the Roman Missal instructs priests to hold the chalice until the completion of all these words. Pope St. Pius V’s teaching states that if the words of consecration are changed so that the meaning is altered, the priest does not confect the Sacrament. In the New Mass the words of consecration have been drastically changed, and the meaning has been altered.

Happy to answer your question.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

No, I don’t believe it because 1) I’m not required to since he wasn’t speaking infallibly, 2) I don’t believe Jesus would have said that, and 3) Scripture and the witness of the Eastern rites strongly indicate that Jesus didn’t say it.

Now I ask a question and beg you to answer it: Do you believe the formulae of consecration in the Eastern rites are invalid because they lack Mystery of Faith?

Maria

Now reciprocate and elaborate on what is your meaning, citing references since you mentioned The Most Holy Scripture and eastern rites.

 

[Uxor]

The words “Mysterium Fidei” were originally said by the deacon - like “Holy things for the holy”, in one of the other rites.​

They do not necessarily, or properly, form part of the formula of consecration; which is complete without them. They are in origin an announcement for the attention of the people; not part of the words of consecration. So they can be taken from the words said by the priest, without affecting the consecration.

Hope that helps ##

Where is that written the words were orginally said by a deacon?

 

[MTD]

The form necessary to confect the Eucharist in the Roman Rite was declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

Note that it says, “the holy Roman Church…uses this form”; it does not say “all rites must use this form.” It is only making a statement of historical fact that the Roman Rite was currently using that form.

In Pope St. Pius V’s Decree De Defectibus, we find the same words repeated: Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”

De Defectibus was referring to the Tridentine Rite and not other rites.

As you can see St Pope Pius V is very clear, if the Eastern Rites
are not of the above stated form, then they do not confect the same sacrament.

I’m amazed. You are the first person I’ve met who interprets St. Pius V’s words to apply to Eastern rites.

We can see that the same words mentioned by the Council of Florence are declared to be necessary by Pope St. Pius V.

They were declared necessary only for the Latin rites in use at the time. They said nothing about Eastern rites.

Pope St. Pius V’s teaching states that if the words of consecration are changed so that the meaning is altered, the priest does not confect the Sacrament.

Yes, that is the case even in the Pauline Rite. The priest is not permitted to change the words of consecration approved by the Holy See.

In the New Mass the words of consecration have been drastically changed, and the meaning has been altered.

But they were changed by the pope. De Defectibus was addressed to priests, not popes.

Happy to answer your question.

Thank you.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Now reciprocate and elaborate on what is your meaning, citing references since you mentioned The Most Holy Scripture and eastern rites.

I have to go now, but I’ll be back tomorrow. Just wanted to let you know, so that you don’t think I’m avoiding you.

Maria

 

[RobedWithLight]

Let me clarify for you because I see that you are of the view of Sola Scriptura:

Mystery of Faith:

Pope Innocent III and the Canon of the Mass also tell us that the words “mysterium fidei” were given by Jesus Christ Himself.

Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202, in response to a question about the form of the Eucharist and the inclusion of ‘mysterium fidei’: "You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of 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 none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed… In the Canon of the Mass that expression, ‘mysterium fidei,’ is found interposed among His words… Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed… Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as they are found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."(Denzinger 414-415.)

I hope this clarifies your Sola Scriptura view. Please by all means confirm this on your own accord.

The words “the mystery of faith” in the consecration are a clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These words were also removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer in his 1549 Anglican Prayer book because of their clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 306.)
*Are you in agreement with Michael Davies the heretic?
*

You have in fact proven your own point against yourself. If indeed the words “Mystery of Faith” is interposed or implicit in Jesus’ own words, would it still be really necessary to pronounce the exact words “Mystery of Faith” during the consecration?

Perhaps you don’t realize that the words “Mystery of Faith” is simply an affirmation that Transubstantiation had indeed already taken place, and NOT that it actually brings about or causes Transubstantiation. If it were, then both Jesus and Paul would have insisted upon its use.

St. Paul himself, in his account of the institution of the Eucharist is worth quoting:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. I Cor. 11:23-27.

Is the Novus Ordo wrong then for merely following the ancient, actual biblical account of the institution of the Eucharist?

Are you bold enough to accuse St. Paul of being a Sola Scripturalist for not using the words “Mystery of Faith” in his account? And for that matter the Gospel writers Sts. Matthew, Mark and Luke?

 

[AJV]

Please review the references cited by Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202 on my previous reply. I believe what he said, do you? Make your comment with reference to what He stated.

Do you also believe that Christ did NOT turn the bread into His Body at the Last Supper by saying “This is my Body”?

 

[AJV]

As you can see St Pope Pius V is very clear, if the Eastern Rites
are not of the above stated form, then they do not confect the same sacrament. I agree with this form.

One question: if he was so clear why did not bother to insist that all the Eastern Churches in communion with him add *Mysterium Fidei *into their liturgies?
For that matter why hasn’t any Pope from then to this day insisted on that? Why have they occasionally celebrated Eastern liturgies without using those words?

Maybe you will find this; Michael Davies agreed: “It is beyond dispute that… the Roman Rite has been destroyed.”(Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 504.).

I fail to see how this quote supports your argument that the removal of “mysterium fidei” was a denial of transubstiation.

 

[Rykell]

The problem with the validity of the New Mass comes with the form, those words necessary to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

This is becoming rather deplorable, ThereCBO1. You are teaching heresy to innocent members of this forum. It has been pointed out to you previously that the mass is VALID, and the form, even though the words are not identical to older canons, is absolutely confecting the Eucharistic species and has been declared by the Pope.

[Edited by Moderator] If that is your belief, perhaps you should keep it to yourself, for it is a heretical teaching.

 

[Uxor]

One question: if he was so clear why did not bother to insist that all the Eastern Churches in communion with him add *Mysterium Fidei *into their liturgies?
For that matter why hasn’t any Pope from then to this day insisted on that? Why have they occasionally celebrated Eastern liturgies without using those words?

I fail to see how this quote supports your argument that the removal of “mysterium fidei” was a denial of transubstiation.

All roads lead to Rome AJV. This continual reference to Eastern Rites, 3rd Century and Scripture while ignoring Sacred Tradtion and 1500+ years of the Roman Rite is mind boggling. What I see is there was NO church before Vatican II.