Mystery of Faith

[AJV]

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.

If you will note, Uxor, I was specifically responding to the assertation of ThereCanBeOnly1 that the form of the Sacrament used in the East was NOT valid.

Should the *mysterium fidei *have been removed? Myself, I see no reason to. The thing is it was removed. The question is does it amount to a denial of the doctrine or render the sacrament invalid as he was suggesting? I think one is hard pressed to prove that.

 

[MTD]

MTD:

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.

1. I’m not required to since he wasn’t speaking infallibly

One reason he was not speaking infallibly is because one of the conditions for ex cathedra teaching is that it must be obvious that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. But the document did not bind the Eastern Churches, so it is evident he did not intend to bind the whole Church.

Another reason is that the document was only a letter addressed to an archbishop, rather than an encyclical or bull. In such a case, he would have needed to indicate expressly that such teaching was addressed to the whole Church and that he was speaking definitively. He would have needed to expressly mention the Eastern Churches because their rites lacked that term. Which he did not.

1. I don’t believe Jesus would have said that

This is, I admit, a highly personal opinion. To my mind, Mystery of Faith is a rather technical or theological term, which indicates to me that it was developed later. From what we do know from Scripture of the language Jesus used, I think it highly unlikely that he would have used that term. It sounds much more like something St. Paul, rather than Jesus, would have introduced.

1. Scripture and the witness of the Eastern rites strongly indicate that Jesus didn’t say it

Matt. 26:27-28

“And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”

Mark 14:23-24

“And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

Luke 22:20

“In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.”

1 Cor. 11:25

“In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.”

From the Byzantine Rite (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom):

“Drink of this all, This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.”

From the Armenian Rite:

“Drink you all from this. This is My Blood for the New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many, in expiation and in remission of sins.”

From the Ethiopian (Ge’ez) Rite, Anaphora of the Apostles:

“Take drink, this is My Blood which is shed for you. As often as you will do this, you will do it in remembrance of Me.”

This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of all formulae of consecration in the Eastern rites, but it is sufficient to illustrate that the term Mystery of Faith generally does not exist in the Eastern rites. Yet they are valid rites and truly confect the Sacrament.

Maria

 

[MTD]

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.

Uxor, we are just pointing out that many Eastern rites in communion with Rome lack the term Mystery of Faith, and yet it has never, through all these centuries, been doubted that they are valid rites. We are just using them to illustrate that Mystery of Faith is not a necessary element, in the absolute sense, for transubstantiation.

Maria

 

[Uxor]

If you will note, Uxor, I was specifically responding to the assertation of ThereCanBeOnly1 that the form of the Sacrament used in the East was NOT valid.

Should the *mysterium fidei *have been removed? Myself, I see no reason to. The thing is it was removed. The question is does it amount to a denial of the doctrine or render the sacrament invalid as he was suggesting? I think one is hard pressed to prove that.

As far as I know the Church has never said their Masses are invalid. I just think St. Peter inserted those words and not all of the Apostles used it. And when TCBO1 recites councils etc. that pertains specifically to the Roman Rite imo.

 

[MTD]

And when TCBO1 recites councils etc. that pertains specifically to the Roman Rite imo.

Actually, from the following quote, ThereCanBeOnly1 also understands them to pertain to more than the Roman Rite:

ThereCanBeOnly1:

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 was debating in another thread on this same topic, trying to demonstrate how the words of St. Pius V applied to the Tridentine Rite only. I’m quoting from one of my posts there:

"I brought up the Eastern rites because I wanted to prove that St. Pius V’s De Defectibus does not refer to all rites. Since it does not refer to all rites, it must be determined which rite(s) it refers to. The answer is the Tridentine Rite, to which that document specifically refers.

You seem to be saying that it applies not only to the Tridentine, which was the Roman Rite referred to in De Defectibus, but to all rites which are promulgated as the Roman Rite. I disagree since St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine “in perpetuity” and thereby excluded other future rites from his declaration.

And if that is not a good enough argument, let me propose another. Hypothetically, the Byzantine Rite, which is the normative rite of the Melkite, Greek, Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Romanian, etc. Churches, could also be promulgated as the universal rite of the Latin Church, thereby becoming the normative Roman Rite. Now since the formula of consecration in the Byzantine Rite is valid regardless of what Church the Byzantine Rite functions as the normative rite for, it follows that the formula would still be valid after the rite was promulgated as the Roman Rite since the formula would not have been changed in the process of promulgation. The formula would not be the same as the Tridentine formula outlined in De Defectibus, and yet it would still be valid. This shows that just because a rite is promulgated for universal use in the Latin Church does not mean it must abide by the regulations of De Defectibus. (And just in case you’re thinking of arguing that the Byzantine Rite could never be promulgated as the Roman Rite because the Tridentine was promulgated “in perpetuity,” I remind you that that would also mean the revisions of St. Pius X and Pius XII were invalidly promulgated, but such is admittedly not the case.)"

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As far as I know the Church has never said their Masses are invalid. I just think St. Peter inserted those words and not all of the Apostles used it. And when TCBO1 recites councils etc. that pertains specifically to the Roman Rite imo.

What citation can you provide that Saint Peter used those words?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

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?

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

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?

Huh??? CITE where I accused St. Paul. Greetings. You are delayed in response, please review post #49 to help with clarification. I made no accusation at all! You obviously have not read the quoted references on #49. The NOM if in fact is wrong as you have suggested, it is for more reasons than just this one. For example to name a few:

(1) Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our
permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”( Pope St. Pius V, Bull Quo Primum, July 14, 1570.)

(2) The Ottaviani Intervention. It states:
“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.” (The Ottaviani Intervention, Rockford, IL: Tan Books.)

(3) The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227: "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 has 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 and 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."(The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, 1982, p. 227. )

(4) St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist:
"The words 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…” ***(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44. ) ***

(5) Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” (Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34. )

I am not sure how these references support the NOM. To support what you have suggested about the NOM it may be a number of reasons, which include but not limited to, the Mystery Of Faith. If these have a hidden meaning which I am missing please elaborate instead of making falsified accusations and answering questions with tangential questions

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

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.

What exactly are you saying? Is it that you do not like what references I use from the Vatican, Benedics books, papal encycs,? [Edited by Moderator] Prove what you claim because if I am teaching heresy than you are saying the references used are heretical. YOU ARE IN CONTRADICTION. [Edited by Moderator] Prove what I have referenced on this post is incorrect? I ASK YOU TO EXPLAIN them, if you can. [Edited by Moderator]
May the Almighty God + Bless You.

 

[MTD]

(1) Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our
permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”( Pope St. Pius V, Bull Quo Primum, July 14, 1570.)

Do you believe that St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII incurred the wrath of Almighty God and Sts. Peter and Paul for revising the Tridentine Rite and promulgating their respective revisions? Did not St. Pius V forbid such a thing in this bull?

Maria

 

[AJV]

(5) Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” (Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34. )

I am not sure how these references support the NOM. To support what you have suggested about the NOM it may be a number of reasons, which include but not limited to, the Mystery Of Faith. If these have a hidden meaning which I am missing please elaborate instead of making falsified accusations and answering questions with tangential questions

As I often say when people quote this one: have you opened a Calvinist service book and seen what it looks like? Since when did Calvinist’s start believing in the Real Presence first of all.

If mysterium fidei is absolutely 100% essential for the Consecration then why is it not in other liturgies? And why have Popes not insisted it be so?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

As I often say when people quote this one: have you opened a Calvinist service book and seen what it looks like?

is that all? you forgot to comment on the other points. Be honest not selective. Like others you answer questions with questions. Non- productive for this thread.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Do you believe that St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII incurred the wrath of Almighty God and Sts. Peter and Paul for revising the Tridentine Rite and promulgating their respective revisions? Did not St. Pius V forbid such a thing in this bull?

Maria

That is why I gave more references this time so that you may comment on all. If all are wrong please elaborate. If they have a hidden meaning which has eluded me, please elaborate. Like Other members, you are commenting on official documented evidence from Popes, saints, etc. I have understood it one way and I am open to suggestion of your meanings. Do These documents Have Another Meaning? What is it?

 

[AJV]

is that all? you forgot to comment on the other points. Be honest not selective.

I did not comment because we were discussing the merits of the mysterium fidei rather than the NO Mass.But since you wish

(1) Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our
permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”( Pope St. Pius V, Bull Quo Primum, July 14, 1570.)

He declared the same thing with regard to the breviary and it was changed by St. Pius X. Did St. Pius X incur the wrath of Almighty God?

(2) The Ottaviani Intervention. It states:
“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.” (The Ottaviani Intervention, Rockford, IL: Tan Books.)

I would say that even the Ottaviani Intervention also has mistakes. Erroneously the writer goes against expressions that are wholly orthodox and are found in other liturgies.

(3) The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227: "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 has 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 and 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."(The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, 1982, p. 227. )

(4) St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist:
"The words 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…” ***(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44. ) ***

I would redirect you to the numerous threads on the “for many” vs. “for all” and thankfully anyway the Pope has decided to restore Christ’s own words to the form. It is interesting also that you cite St. Alphonsus Liguori who, if I’m not mistaken, was an advocate of the “short form”-that “This is My Blood” was solely necessary.

And I would also appreciate greatly if you could validate your earlier statement further: why did St. Pius V not insist that those in communion with him adopt “mysterium fidei”?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I did not comment because we were discussing the merits of the mysterium fidei rather than the NO Mass.But since you wish

He declared the same thing with regard to the breviary and it was changed by St. Pius X. Did St. Pius X incur the wrath of Almighty God?

I would say that even the Ottaviani Intervention also has mistakes. Erroneously the writer goes against expressions that are wholly orthodox and are found in other liturgies.

I would redirect you to the numerous threads on the “for many” vs. “for all” and thankfully anyway the Pope has decided to restore Christ’s own words to the form. It is interesting also that you cite St. Alphonsus Liguori who, if I’m not mistaken, was an advocate of the “short form”-that “This is My Blood” was solely necessary.

And I would also appreciate if you could validate your statement further: why did St. Pius V
not insist that those in communion with him adopt “mysterium fidei”?

Thank you finally for your comments and Yes I wish. I see that you disagree with those popes, saints, etc… As with St. Pius X and the wrath of God, are you being sarcastic or genuine? How often have you seen the wrath of God+ LOL I have addressed, within this thread, “mysterium fidei”, please review it on your own accord. Regarding comment Ottiviani, I do not see an argument here. St. Pius V, you want me tell you why a SAINT not insist,… I thought he was clear (please review my posts on this thread). Perhaps you can explain why he only insisted or directed it to one group and not to All of the Church. Since you claim it was for one rite and not the other, what is the justification for its exclusion?

**Mysterium fidei **is extremely important, I think, for these reasons:

**(1) **These words portray the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as taught by Innocent III; they do not signify the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
(2) And also:
* The eternal existence of God (Alpha and Omega),
* The Trinity,
* The creation of the Universe from nothing,
* The Incarnation,
* Transubstantiation.

I am not sure if you have the same understanding as this above, but if you do, do you suggest Mysterium Fidei it is not required? Why?

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[AJV]

Thank you finally for your comments and Yes I wish. I see that you disagree with those popes, saints, etc… As with St. Pius X and the wrath of God, are you being sarcastic or genuine? How often have you seen the wrath of God+ LOL

Sarcastic. I apologize, actually I ought not to have written it like that, but my point was basically that if one does not regard the wrath of God on St. Pius X an he changed the breviary which had the same restrictions as the Missal then evidently the words do not have the meaning that some impute to them. I certainly don’t hope to see the wrath of God

I have addressed, within this thread, “mysterium fidei”, please review it on your own accord. Regarding comment Ottiviani, I do not see an argument here. St. Pius V, you want me tell you why a SAINT not insist,… I thought he was clear (please review my posts on this thread). Perhaps you can explain why he only insisted or directed it to one group and not to All of the Church. Since you claim it was for one rite and not the other, what is the justification for its exclusion?

Why is the ommission of mysterium fidei not affect the Consecration? If it such an integral part then I would think that all rites of the Church should have it and they don’t. That doesn’t mean that we should necessarily chuck something that has been there for 1500 years as part of the form

Even most of those who are not at all fond of the NO (like the SSPX) admit that a Consecration in Latin without mysterium fidei is valid.
**Mysterium fidei **is extremely important, I think, for these reasons:

**(1) **These words portray the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as taught by Innocent III; they do not signify the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
(2) And also:
* The eternal existence of God (Alpha and Omega),
* The Trinity,
* The creation of the Universe from nothing,
* The Incarnation,
* Transubstantiation.

I am not sure if you have the same understanding as this above, but if you do, do you suggest Mysterium Fidei it is not required? Why?

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

As regards Pope Innocent III it is undoubtedly true that *mysterium fidei * is supposed to convey the mystery of the altar. That does not preclude it from been open to misinterpretation as the *Summa *shows.

I also feel that while we do have many things that are a Mystery of Faith including those you cite, not all of them are conveyed by the expression “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration which is directed specifically toward (at least in my understanding) the Real Presence int the Sacrament. We do try and come closer using scholastic terminology and metaphysical but in the end it is a mystery.

Mysterium Fidei is still referred to in the Mass just not in the Consecration form.

 

[AJV]

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

I don’t have the book on hand but here’s the reference in any case: such a view is found explained with all the references in Fr. Gassner’s (1949) work on the Canon of the Mass, in which, IIRC, he holds that the addition was made around the time when the Memento’s were transposed from the Offertory to the Canon.

 

[BobP123]

I would redirect you to the numerous threads on the “for many” vs. “for all” and thankfully anyway the Pope has decided to restore Christ’s own words to the form.

Yes and the sooner the better. I don’t think I can live another day with these liberals continuing to pour out their so-called wisdom in defending that “for all” stuff.

 

[MTD]

MTD:

Do you believe that St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII incurred the wrath of Almighty God and Sts. Peter and Paul for revising the Tridentine Rite and promulgating their respective revisions? Did not St. Pius V forbid such a thing in this bull?

Maria

That is why I gave more references this time so that you may comment on all. If all are wrong please elaborate. If they have a hidden meaning which has eluded me, please elaborate. Like Other members, you are commenting on official documented evidence from Popes, saints, etc. I have understood it one way and I am open to suggestion of your meanings. Do These documents Have Another Meaning? What is it?

This is the second time you have refused to answer one of my questions, and yet I have never refused to answer any of your questions directed to me. May I ask why you are acting thus?

If all are wrong please elaborate. If they have a hidden meaning which has eluded me, please elaborate.

I said nothing about them being wrong; I only asked you a question so that I have something to work from in order to frame an answer.

You want me to elaborate on your post, but you have not elaborated on my posts #52 and #60, which were in response to your questions and explain a little more why I believe your interpretation is lacking.

Like Other members, you are commenting on official documented evidence from Popes, saints, etc. I have understood it one way and I am open to suggestion of your meanings. Do These documents Have Another Meaning? What is it?

If you would kindly answer my question, I can explain the meaning as I see it.

Maria

 

[MTD]

What exactly are you saying? Is it that you do not like what references I use from the Vatican, Benedics books, papal encycs,? Do you have a problem? Prove what you claim because if I am teaching heresy than you are saying the references used are heretical. YOU ARE IN CONTRADICTION.

I see that you disagree with those popes, saints, etc…

ThereCanBeOnly1,

Please understand that we do not have a problem with your citations from the Vatican, popes, saints, etc. Our problem is with how you are applying them to the facts. It is quite possible to improperly apply theologically certain doctrines to the facts. As St. Peter says about the Scriptures: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Pet. 3:16) The same is often done with the writings of the popes, councils, and Doctors of the Church.

To avoid this pitfall, we need to look at history, context, and the intent of the writer.

Maria

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

This is the second time you have refused to answer one of my questions, and yet I have never refused to answer any of your questions directed to me. May I ask why you are acting thus?

I said nothing about them being wrong; I only asked you a question so that I have something to work from in order to frame an answer.

You want me to elaborate on your post, but you have not elaborated on my posts #52 and #60, which were in response to your questions and explain a little more why I believe your interpretation is lacking.

If you would kindly answer my question, I can explain the meaning as I see it.

Maria

I do not know if they incurred the wrath of God+. They might have or may or may not. I have not seen the wrath of God+ and can only cite what was written. God + does what he wants when he wants wherever he wants. I cannot say when he shall pass judgment. I am not avoiding answering your questions but I think I have written some of you answers about it on this thread. Also I am not always online so I apologize Please see post#72 and another post hopefully soon. I think Mysterium fidei should present because of how important the meaning has for us. I am posting another response so please review it. Thank you.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.