S
Sparky
Guest
- Status
R
RSiscoe
Guest
I could write a lot about this topic, but don’t have time.
To answer your question: I do not doubt the validity of the New Mass as it was promulgated by Rome. However, when the Mass was retranslated into the vernacular, they mistranslated the words of consecration. In most of the vernacular languages (maybe all of them), the word “pro-multis” (for many) was mistranslated to “for all”. Do all and many mean the same thing? If not, we have a problem with the vernacular masses
The Catechism of Trent explicitly said that “for all” was not to be used, and went into detail as to why.
Does the mistranslation from the originaal Novus Ordo in latin invalidate the mass? I guess it depends on whether all and many have the same meaning.
Do I say the New Mass is invalid? I don’t know. Does the mistransation cause me concern? Yes.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
But all that’s really necessary for a valid consecration is “This is my body … This is my blood … Do this in memory of me.” And the Eastern rites don’t even say “for many” OR “for all” in their canon – at least some of their canons.
RSiscoe, if the translations were approved, then the Novus Ordo is valid no matter if “for all” or “for many” is used.
Do you go to Latin Novus Ordo Mass or a Tridentine Mass? If the latter, is it an indult Mass, an SSPX Mass, or an indult Mass? Just curious.
RSiscoe, if the translations were approved, then the Novus Ordo is valid no matter if “for all” or “for many” is used.
Do you go to Latin Novus Ordo Mass or a Tridentine Mass? If the latter, is it an indult Mass, an SSPX Mass, or an indult Mass? Just curious.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Btw, please read this article here: jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm#forall
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Regarding exactly what is necessary for the consecration of the wine: St. Thomas does not agree with you.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. 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 belong to the substance of the 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 (i.e., the form’s) recitation.”
But your position is that, since Rome approved it it must be valid, right? Well, did you know that Rome approved a “mass” that contained no words of consecration. I think it was the Assyrian Chaldean Rite. It has not words of consecration, yet it was approved as VALID. That should show us that things are not functioning as they should in Rome.
Do I attend the Novus Ordo? I stopped going to the Novus Ordo years ago. Several months ago I posted the reason why I have a problem with the New Mass. I will locate and repost that again; look for a new thread sometime today or tomorrow.
I attend an Indult Mass primarily, but do go to an SSPX from time to time. And before you start calling me names (schismatic, etc.) Rome has said that attendance at a SSPX Mass can be justified. Having considered everything (the situation in the Church, what Rome has said, my reasons for attending, etc.) my conscience is very clear on the matter.
Look for the new post in this section.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
First, please read the article whose link I provided. Second, can you provide a source for the Mass that you claim has no consecration?
Do I attend the Novus Ordo? I stopped going to the Novus Ordo years ago. Several months ago I posted the reason why I have a problem with the New Mass. I will locate and repost that again; look for a new thread sometime today or tomorrow.
I attend an Indult Mass primarily, but do go to an SSPX from time to time. And before you start calling me names (schismatic, etc.) Rome has said that attendance at a SSPX Mass can be justified. Having considered everything (the situation in the Church, what Rome has said, my reasons for attending, etc.) my conscience is very clear on the matter.
It’s dangerous to attend SSPX Masses because a schismatic mentality could set in. Also, you don’t have a justifiable reason to attend SSPX chapels. If the Church has approved translations that use “for all,” then who are we to argue? Rome has spoken; the case is closed.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
I just read through the article. Either they are ignorant or dishonest. I don’t have the time to quote portions of the article and respond to it, but I do have time to copy and past what the Catechism of Trent said, which addresses most of the arguments in the article you referenced.
Catechism of Trent:
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 have 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 or 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. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine." 64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3gLFCZNsUmMJ:www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm+Catechism+of+Trent+with+reason+therefore,+were+the+words+for+all+not+used&hl=en
R
RSiscoe
Guest
I haven’t read the following article, it was just the first thing that poped up when I did a google search, but it does address the “mass” with no words of consecration, which Rome approved… I’m sure this article will provide enough informtion for you to research in indepth.
catholicrestoration.org/newsletter/mar_02_obrien.PDF
S
Sparky
Guest
Isn’t this one of the banned topics? where a moderator when you need one?
–Ann
–Ann
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
No, it’s sedevacantism that is banned.
And RSiscoe, to just dismiss the article as ignorant or dishonest is something I find rather arrogant. Remember, the sin of Adam and Eve happened because they thought they knew better than God. And I’m sorry, but your belief about the vernacular Novus Ordo being possibly invalid comes dangerously close to heresy.
Take a look at this article as well: jloughnan.tripod.com/frereplm.htm#all
And this one too:
jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm#forall3
I’m gonna look elsewhere for sources for the Mass without a consecration that you brought up. If it comes from the National Catholic Reporter or is written by Richard McBrien, I think we have reason to doubt its credibility.
And RSiscoe, to just dismiss the article as ignorant or dishonest is something I find rather arrogant. Remember, the sin of Adam and Eve happened because they thought they knew better than God. And I’m sorry, but your belief about the vernacular Novus Ordo being possibly invalid comes dangerously close to heresy.
Take a look at this article as well: jloughnan.tripod.com/frereplm.htm#all
And this one too:
jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm#forall3
I’m gonna look elsewhere for sources for the Mass without a consecration that you brought up. If it comes from the National Catholic Reporter or is written by Richard McBrien, I think we have reason to doubt its credibility.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Ok, here’s what EWTN has to say about the alleged Mass without a consecration:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUASCH.HTM
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUASCH.HTM
R
RSiscoe
Guest
David,
I posted my reasons for no longer attending the new Mass in the apologeitcs section, but they immediately moved it to the Liturgy and Sacraments section. If you would like to read over it, you can find it there.
I posted my reasons for no longer attending the new Mass in the apologeitcs section, but they immediately moved it to the Liturgy and Sacraments section. If you would like to read over it, you can find it there.
D
DavidJoseph
Guest
Then expect a response from me in that thread soon.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
OK, I’ll be looking for your response.
J
jimmy
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
Pius V changed the mass. Has the mass been invalid since Pius V?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
True. I therefore propose that the Church reinstitute the liturgy in Aramaic, and consecrations to be considered invalid unless the convocation is recited in Aramaic.
M
MaryJohnZ
Guest
I think that gerry Matatics has some serious points that he is making and while I love our Pope Benedict, I have to wonder why Paul VI would remove words about Priests offering mass as propitiation for mankind’s sins in the ordination of priests as well as removing words about forgiveness of sins in confession in the new ordination rit of 1968—WHY???
I will still go to mass because I cannot be sure it is invalid or void, but my heart is saddened and I have a new understanding about how much the Church is under attack in our time.
I heard Gerry speak in Manchester, NH about two weeks ago.
I also have a devotion to our Lady of La Salette. I would like to see the bodies of the two La Salette seerers, Melanine and Maxine, exhumed as the Fatima children were. The La Salette apparition has always been somewhat disregarded dispite the serious content.
Other’s have said the Eucharist would disappear for a while in the church (Christine Galagher) and if the ordination of 1968 changed or invalidated the priesthood, this could be true in part. But the Church will be resurrected, maybe through the Eastern Orthodox…they have maintined the true ordination and true apostolic line in their Bishops, have they not?
But I cannot be sure the mass is invalid…so i will continue to go and pray for discernment.
It is too much for me! And it seems from this forum for everyone else as well…
MZ
I will still go to mass because I cannot be sure it is invalid or void, but my heart is saddened and I have a new understanding about how much the Church is under attack in our time.
I heard Gerry speak in Manchester, NH about two weeks ago.
I also have a devotion to our Lady of La Salette. I would like to see the bodies of the two La Salette seerers, Melanine and Maxine, exhumed as the Fatima children were. The La Salette apparition has always been somewhat disregarded dispite the serious content.
Other’s have said the Eucharist would disappear for a while in the church (Christine Galagher) and if the ordination of 1968 changed or invalidated the priesthood, this could be true in part. But the Church will be resurrected, maybe through the Eastern Orthodox…they have maintined the true ordination and true apostolic line in their Bishops, have they not?
But I cannot be sure the mass is invalid…so i will continue to go and pray for discernment.
It is too much for me! And it seems from this forum for everyone else as well…
MZ
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
Gerry is a former Protestant Convert. He has embraced several Theological positions in the Past and he debates from a not binding theological platform.
He has debated Robert Sungenis in the past. You can go to Catholic Apologetics Website for information on Gerry. His positions seem to be in constant change.
As to any Sacrament - any Sacrament including Holy Orders can be invalidated if there are defects in Form Matter or Intent. I believe that the Church is coming out with a new form of the OF very soon and it will be interesting to see if the Words of Consecration have been changed in the updated english vernacular editions. This has long been controversial in English editions. Remember also - the official Church Version of the OF is in Latin and says "Pro Multis " the only questions are the Vernacular Translation which doesnt affect the OF in Latin as Promulgated by Paul the VI only the English Translations.
As to a Pope having the power to Change a Sacrament - on that count Gerry is correct.
Vatican I defined Papal Infallibility Session 4 : 18 July 1870
- The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
- This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
- But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
T
TMC
Guest
The belief that saying certain words in a certain way will compel God to act, and that failing to get the words right will prevent God from acting, is not Catholicism. It is more akin to pagan beliefs in magical rituals. The words mandated for use by the Church are important for that reason, because the Church has mandated their use. But its not a magic spell and God does not wait to hear the magic words to grant His Grace.
- Status