Mystery of Faith

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

All that’s been done is the posting of a citation of a document issued by the Holy See that explained WHY “for all” did not render and had not rendered the Mass invalid and why the translation was being brought into closer conformity with the original Latin. You’ve hardly been innudated with liberalism (unless you’re accusing the Holy See of being guilty of that particular heresy). If someone can’t live another day with THAT, well, I for one will pray for the repose of that person’s soul

More silly hyperbolic overstatment.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

*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.

Good points.

I think Pope Leo XIII renders the Mysterium Fidei well. This encyclical is even referenced MYSTERIUM FIDEI (ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST SEPTEMBER 3, 1965) 15.

Encyclical letter Mirae caritatis: Acta Leonis XIII, XXII (1902-1903) 122
(ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST)
**Mystery of Faith
**
7. Moreover, in this most admirable Sacrament, which is the chief means whereby men are engrafted on the divine nature, men also find the most efficacious help towards progress in every kind of virtue. And first of all in faith. In all ages faith has been attacked; for although it elevates the human mind by bestowing on it the knowledge of the highest truths, yet because, while it makes known the existence of divine mysteries, it yet leaves in obscurity the mode of their being, it is therefore thought to degrade the intellect. But whereas in past times particular articles of faith have been made by turns the object of attack; the seat of war has since been enlarged and extended, until it has come to this, that men deny altogether that there is anything above and beyond nature. Now nothing can be better adapted to promote a renewal of the strength and fervour of faith in the human mind than the mystery of the Eucharist, the "mystery of faith," as it has been most appropriately called. For in this one mystery the entire supernatural order, with all its wealth and variety of wonders, is in a manner summed up and contained: “He hath made a remembrance of His wonderful works, a merciful and gracious Lord; He bath given food to them that fear Him” (Psalm cx, 4-5). For whereas God has subordinated the whole supernatural order to the Incarnation of His Word, in virtue whereof salvation has been restored to the human race, according to those words of the Apostle; “He bath purposed…to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in Him” (Eph. i., 9-10), the Eucharist, according to the testimony of the holy Fathers, should be regarded as in a manner a continuation and extension of the Incarnation. For in and by it the substance of the incarnate Word is united with individual men, and the supreme Sacrifice offered on Calvary is in a wondrous manner renewed, as was signified beforehand by Malachy in the words: “In every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a pure oblation” (Mal. i., II). *And this miracle, itself the very greatest of its kind, is accompanied by innumerable other miracles; for here all the laws of nature are suspended; the whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood; *the species of bread and wine are sustained by the divine power without the support of any underlying substance; the Body of Christ is present in many places at the same time, that is to say, wherever the Sacrament is consecrated. And in order that human reason may the more willingly pay its homage to this great mystery, there have not been wanting, as an aid to faith, certain prodigies wrought in His honour, both in ancient times and in our own, of which in more than one place there exist public and notable records and memorials. It is plain that by this Sacrament faith is fed, in it the mind finds its nourishment, the objections of rationalists are brought to naught, and abundant light is thrown on the supernatural order.

Since the Mysterium Fidei is so beautiful and arguably should be included.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

All that’s been done is the posting of a citation of a document issued by the Holy See that explained WHY “for all” did not render and had not rendered the Mass invalid and why the translation was being brought into closer conformity with the original Latin. You’ve hardly been innudated with liberalism (unless you’re accusing the Holy See of being guilty of that particular heresy). If someone can’t live another day with THAT, well, I for one will pray for the repose of that person’s soul

More silly hyperbolic overstatment.

I think you are missing the point. The restoration of the words only proves that one is better than the other. If this is not so, than the Pope should not have restored the Correct Words, Those of Jesus+ Christ+ who is God+.
Please stay on topic since your tangential vectoring of thought can lead to unproductive info exchange on this thread.

 

[tcraig]

The restoration of the words only proves that one is better than the other. If this is not so, than the Pope should not have restored the Correct Words, Those of Jesus+ Christ+ who is God+.

Or maybe, just maybe, the Holy Father had the words restored because he was tired of nut-case traditionalists acting as if the church had promulgated an invalid rite on the entire Catholic world and wanted to shut them up.

Extremism, whether from the right or the left, gets very tiresome.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think you are missing the point. The restoration of the words only proves that one is better than the other. If this is not so, than the Pope should not have restored the Correct Words, Those of Jesus+ Christ+ who is God+.
Please stay on topic since your tangential vectoring of thought can lead to unproductive info exchange on this thread.

No, what I said was germane to the topic (whether you think so or not, as you are not the arbiter of what is topical). Bob seems to suggest in his post that he’s being assaulted by liberal insistence on “for all.” That hasn’t happened. What’s been posted is what the HOLY SEE says, the highest authority, since what it issues is issued in the name of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Further, it is germane, since the same was posted in another thread in which YOU suggested that 1) there was a new Catholic religion that was seperate, distinct, not related to the Catholic religion that went before (a heresy) and where the validity of the Mass which included “for all” and lacked the “Mysterium Fidei” was questioned (a heresy that you keep putting forward HERE, as well, as it invokes Trent’s anathema). The Same Jesus Christ, who is God, left the authority to DEAL with these matters to His Church.

 

[MTD]

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

My point in asking that question was to show that St. Pius V was not binding future popes when he promulgated the Tridentine Rite “in perpetuity.” Promulgation of a rite is a disciplinary action, but popes are not bound by preceding popes’ disciplinary actions. The reason is because each pope is given the fulness of the power of binding and loosing promised by Jesus to Peter: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19)

St. Pius V’s De Defectibus and Quo Primum do NOT bind future popes. Neither De Defectibus nor Quo Primum infallibly defined faith and morals; they were both disciplinary documents. To say that they do bind future popes is the equivalent of saying St. Pius V had a greater share in the primacy of Peter than the other popes did because his disciplinary norms bind future popes.

St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII both promulgated revisions of the Tridentine Rite in “violation” of Quo Primum. This shows conclusively that Quo Primum does not bind future popes.

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.

I’m a little confused by this since your post #72 was in response to AJV, not me, but I’ll see what I can do.

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?

If you look carefully at Quo Primum, you will see that St. Pius V specifically excluded the Eastern rites by saying that all rites having existed for more than 200 hundred years before the promulgation of the Tridentine were exempted from being superseded by the Tridentine; the Eastern rites were among those that had existed for more than 200 years previously, so they were not affected by the promulgation of the Tridentine.
“Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women—even of military orders—and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever. This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.”

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?

I hold that Mysterium Fidei is not required, in the absolute sense, for transubstantiation because the Eastern rites, which are still valid rites as I showed above from St. Pius V’s bull, do not have it. Mysterium Fidei may, however, be required for transubstantiation in the Tridentine Rite since it is in the approved formula for that rite, and it is forbidden to priests by De Defectibus, at the risk of an invalid consecration, to change the formula of consecration.

Maria

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Or maybe, just maybe, the Holy Father had the words restored because he was tired of nut-case traditionalists acting as if the church had promulgated an invalid rite on the entire Catholic world and wanted to shut them up.

Extremism, whether from the right or the left, gets very tiresome.

Buddy, First of all I am Catholic. Secondly, I am not an extremist, if you would take the time and read my posts you may discover this on your own accord. Lastly, this is not the forum for name calling. It is not polite, ill-mannered, and not Christian in nature. Your tone suggests that you either like to disturb threads or are irritated with yourself due to lack of knowledge. Please stay on topic of the thread and not confound yourself with unintelligible dialect and absurdities. Do you even know what this thread is about? Got it? No Doubt.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I hold that Mysterium Fidei is not required, in the absolute sense, for transubstantiation because the Eastern rites, which are still valid rites as I showed above from St. Pius V’s bull, do not have it. Mysterium Fidei may, however, be required for transubstantiation in the Tridentine Rite since it is in the approved formula for that rite, and it is forbidden to priests by De Defectibus, at the risk of an invalid consecration, to change the formula of consecration.

Maria

It is obvious, after review of post #72 an #80, that our understanding of Mysterium Fidei differs. If this is the case then I see why it is not required in those rites. But in the Roman rite, as I have cited, it has great, great, great meaning (#80), and therefore it must be included. Again please see post #80 (Encyclical letter Mirae caritatis: Acta Leonis XIII, XXII (1902-1903) 122
(ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST -
Mystery of Faith). The Pope Leo XIII (which Pope Paul VI cited in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei) does a good job of explaining its meaning.

 

[BobP123]

Or maybe, just maybe, the Holy Father had the words restored because he was tired of nut-case traditionalists acting as if the church had promulgated an invalid rite on the entire Catholic world and wanted to shut them up.

Extremism, whether from the right or the left, gets very tiresome.

Or maybe he has a conscience (remember that?) and was trying to tell them all along to get their ICEL liberal act together?

But thanks for making all trads look like they run the show. Now if we can only get rid of all the paranoid liberals off this board and focus on real traditional values.

Better yet, I’ll just add you to the list of my ignores who really should count their blessings before they speak.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

No, what I said was germane to the topic (whether you think so or not, as you are not the arbiter of what is topical). Bob seems to suggest in his post that he’s being assaulted by liberal insistence on “for all.” That hasn’t happened. What’s been posted is what the HOLY SEE says, the highest authority, since what it issues is issued in the name of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Further, it is germane, since the same was posted in another thread in which YOU suggested that 1) there was a new Catholic religion that was seperate, distinct, not related to the Catholic religion that went before (a heresy) and where the validity of the Mass which included “for all” and lacked the “Mysterium Fidei” was questioned (a heresy that you keep putting forward HERE, as well, as it invokes Trent’s anathema). The Same Jesus Christ, who is God, left the authority to DEAL with these matters to His Church.

No I am not the arbiter and neither are you. Please try not to confuse other threads with this one. By all means start a thread that deals with the NOM versus Masses before it, and we shall see the differences between them and you can prove that they are the same (heresy). You obviously have not taken the opportunity to review the cited evidences deal with the NOM and how similar it is to protestant services. Please review again the thread - A New catholic Religion - for your benefit. This is the section for Traditional Catholicism right? No doubt.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

No, what I said was germane to the topic (whether you think so or not, as you are not the arbiter of what is topical). Bob seems to suggest in his post that he’s being assaulted by liberal insistence on “for all.” That hasn’t happened. What’s been posted is what the HOLY SEE says, the highest authority, since what it issues is issued in the name of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Further, it is germane, since the same was posted in another thread in which YOU suggested that 1) there was a new Catholic religion that was seperate, distinct, not related to the Catholic religion that went before (a heresy) and where the validity of the Mass which included “for all” and lacked the “Mysterium Fidei” was questioned (a heresy that you keep putting forward HERE, as well, as it invokes Trent’s anathema). The Same Jesus Christ, who is God, left the authority to DEAL with these matters to His Church.

Just to confirm, Is this the same mass you speak of?:

“Cardinal” Annibale Bugnini was Chairman of the Consilium which drafted Paul VI’s New Mass.

 

[Uxor]

Or maybe, just maybe, the Holy Father had the words restored because he was tired of nut-case traditionalists acting as if the church had promulgated an invalid rite on the entire Catholic world and wanted to shut them up.

Extremism, whether from the right or the left, gets very tiresome.

I suggest find another forum…

 

[paramedicgirl]

Or maybe, just maybe, the Holy Father had the words restored because he was tired of **nut-case traditionalists **acting as if the church had promulgated an invalid rite on the entire Catholic world and wanted to shut them up.

Extremism, whether from the right or the left, gets very tiresome.

There’s one for ya, JKIRK!

 

[Uxor]

Or maybe he has a conscience (remember that?) and was trying to tell them all along to get their ICEL liberal act together?

But thanks for making all trads look like they run the show. Now if we can only get rid of all the paranoid liberals off this board and focus on real traditional values.

Better yet, I’ll just add you to the list of my ignores who really should count their blessings before they speak.

Yes, why are liberals here. This is suppose to be a traditional forum I thought for traditionalists to meet and discuss topics. I really don’t care what they liberals think…why do they care what I think?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Yes, why are liberals here. This is suppose to be a traditional forum I thought for traditionalists to meet and discuss topics. I really don’t care what they liberals think…why do they care what I think?

I must admit, sometimes it does feel like this:

 

[MTD]

It is obvious, after review of post #72 an #80, that our understanding of Mysterium Fidei differs. If this is the case then I see why it is not required in those rites. But in the Roman rite, as I have cited, it has great, great, great meaning (#80), and therefore it must be included. Again please see post #80 (Encyclical letter Mirae caritatis: Acta Leonis XIII, XXII (1902-1903) 122
(ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST -
Mystery of Faith). The Pope Leo XIII (which Pope Paul VI cited in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei) does a good job of explaining its meaning.

Yes, I read it and agree that Mysterium Fidei has significance.

However, the purpose of my posts was to show that Mysterium Fidei is not of itself essential for transubstantiation because there are valid rites without it. It may be essential in the Tridentine Rite but not necessarily in other approved rites.

Maria

 

[MTD]

But thanks for making all trads look like they run the show. Now if we can only get rid of all the paranoid liberals off this board and focus on real traditional values.

Hmmm. Christ sat with publicans and sinners because those who are sick are the ones in need of physicians; is it beneath your dignity to do the same?

Yes, why are liberals here. This is suppose to be a traditional forum I thought for traditionalists to meet and discuss topics. I really don’t care what they liberals think…why do they care what I think?

At the top of every Traditional Catholicism page: “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality.” This forum is for both Traditionalists and non-Traditionalists to discuss Traditionalism. If you don’t like that policy, you don’t have to participate on this forum.

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Just to confirm, Is this the same mass you speak of?:

“Cardinal” Annibale Bugnini was Chairman of the Consilium which drafted Paul VI’s New Mass.

See, this is where I really start to question where you’re getting your information or whether you know what you’re talking about at all.

Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was never elevated to the cardinalate.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But in the Roman rite, as I have cited, it has great, great, great meaning (#80), and therefore it must be included.
(

No, actually, it doesn’t have to be included, not for validity. The Supreme Pontiff has the authority to decide whether or not it should be included, since it is not an essential (according to the proofs with which you’ve been amply provided).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, why are liberals here. This is suppose to be a traditional forum I thought for traditionalists to meet and discuss topics. I really don’t care what they liberals think…why do they care what I think?

I guess first I would ask who you believe to be liberals here? And then second, are you basically saying that you want to be left alone to confirm each other in misconceptions (I’m still waiting to hear your citation that Saint Peter, but presumably not the other Apostles disbursed throughout the world, included the *Mysterium Fidei)? *

Why should people be left alone, in a forum that innocent people might come across in their consideration of the Catholic Church, to spread misinformation at best and (in some instances) outright heresy? When Protestants come here and do that, they get called on it. Why shouldn’t “traditionalists?”