The TLM the only Mass for all time?

[JReducation]

In addition to everything that has been said, the wording the the decree by Pius V is off. He is really speaking of the Latin/Roman Rite, but the decree says the Church. The Eastern Catholics are also part of the Church and they have never used the same rite as us. Pius V did not impose it on them with this decree. Therefore, it is legitimate to agree that he was speaking to the Latin Church of his time, not to the Eastern Churches or the Unita Churches or the Church of the future. Pius V was facing an issue of his time, just as Benedict is facing an issue of our time. He was trying to unite the Roman Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

This is from Quo Primum:

“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."

Emphasis added.

Note what Pius V is calling the Tridentine Missal–A NEW RITE!

Therefore, it cannot be the “mass of all time,” now can it?

As a consolidation of various strains of the Latin Mass at the time, the bull by its nature dealt with a topic of discipline. Infallibility, defined in the First Vatican Council, specifies that the papal infallibility only applies to matters of faith or morals. The disciplinary authority of the Pope ends with his death and is passed on to his successor.

In context, Pope Pius was trying to consolidate the Mass and prevent deviations. His “whosever” was aimed at those in his time who, as some always do, resist any change and continue as they always have. If his bull was ignored, then the TLM would not exist and his efforts would have been fruitless.

 

[ac_claire]

In addition to everything that has been said, the wording the the decree by Pius V is off. He is really speaking of the Latin/Roman Rite, but the decree says the Church. The Eastern Catholics are also part of the Church and they have never used the same rite as us. Pius V did not impose it on them with this decree. Therefore, it is legitimate to agree that he was speaking to the Latin Church of his time, not to the Eastern Churches or the Unita Churches or the Church of the future. Pius V was facing an issue of his time, just as Benedict is facing an issue of our time. He was trying to unite the Roman Church.

Glad you brought this up, it’s a great point. I think it reveals a fatal flaw in the sedevacantist argument. Basically they’re not only rejecting the post-Vatican II Church and the NO Mass, but by their logic they would also be rejecting all the other non-Latin rites of the Church which don’t use the TLM and never have. None of their negative arguments against the NO Mass are relevant in regards to the Eastern rite Catholic churches.

So in a nutshell, these guys are wrong because a.) they pridefully reject the lawful authority of the Holy See, and b.) they’re misconstruing the significance of the oft-quoted passage in Quo Primum; which was not an ex cathedra statement.

Does that sounds about right?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

@ Ultima Ratio: ok it seems like you would agree with these MHFM folks that the NO Mass is invalid?

I disagree strongly with the Dimond Brothers (MHFM). I think they should be avoided. The points I raised in my last post don’t deal with validity. Validity means that the host changes into the body of Christ, and the wine into the Blood of Christ. Even if Paul VI did not have the authority to do what he did, that, in and of itself, would not make the mass invalid. It would make it illicit. “Illicit” means “unlawful”. If something is illicit, it doesn’t follow that it is also necessarily invalid.

Now, I will admit that I do have some doubt as to the validity of the New Mass, when it is in the vernacular, due to the mistranslation of the words of consecration (pro multis mistranslated as “for all”). I don’t question the validity of the New Mass as it was issued by Paul VI since it does not have the mistranslation in the Latin original. Now, it is probably not prudent for me to present my reasons for doubt publicly, but I will say this: After meeting with a very conservative Priest in my diocese, I wrote him with my questions over the validity and he concluded that the New Mass was probably invalid - and he said the New Mass almost exclusively.

What about Pope Boniface VIII’s Bull Unam Sanctum, which stated that there can be no salvation to anyone who doesn’t submit to the Roman Pontiff? Doesn’t being in willful schism from Rome and rejecting the post-Vatican II Church mean that you’re not in submission to the Pope?

If someone refuses to submit to the Pope, they are in schism and won’t be saved; but there is no such thing as the Vatican II Church and the pre-Vatican I Church; just as there is no difference between the pre-Trent Church and the post-Trent Church. The difference between today in the pre-Vatican II days is that many (most?) of the Priests no longer believe what the Church teaches. They are infected with Liberalism, which was condemned many times by the Popes. Liberalism as it was condemned, is a little different than Liberalism as it exists today. Today Liberals are big government, high tax, lefties. Liberalism as it was condemned by the Popes goes deeper that this. I would love to discuss this, but it will take us too far off track. Look up the document “Libertas” by Pope Leo XIII. This is a good document on the errors of Liberalism.

Also, the Dimond brothers (MHFM) don’t believe the last few Popes were true Popes. This position is known as Sedevacantism, which means “the seat is vacant”. It is a complicated issue and if I were you I wouldn’t bother myself with it.

There is a lot of confusion in the Church today with people in error on both sides. Priests themselves are often in a state of confusion. In our day it requires a little more effort to stay on the right path. The safest course in this day is to find an FSSP Church, orr Christ the King, in your area and stick with them. I have never met an FSSP Priest who was not excellent. If you would like to hear some of their sermons, you can go to www.audiosancto.com.

Basically what I’m getting from a few of the other posts is that the sentence I emphasized from Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum (“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”…) wasn’t infallible and subsequent popes were well within their rights to promogate a different form of the Mass. I guess my main question is, where did we come to the conclusion that that statement wasn’t ex cathedra?

It’s really a null point now. This was a big argument a few years ago when Traditional Catholic such as myself used to argue that “the old Mass was never abrogated”, which means it was never legally forbidden. The issue was settled by Pope Benedict XVI a few years ago when he issued the document Summorum Pontificum, with the accompanying letter. In that document he basically confirmed that what the Traditional Catholics said all along was exactly right: namely, that the old Mass was never abrogated. In fact, he went further by saying “nor could it me”, thereby confirming what the Traditionalists maintained all along. Here’s what he said:

Pope Benedict XVI: “I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted… What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful”.

That comment was earth shacking. This had been a HUGE debate for decades. Traditionalists, such as myself, had been absolutely ridiculed and called all kinds of names for maintaining this. Many of the people reading this posts were in the group who ridiculed us. In the end, the Pope himself admitted that the Traditionalists had been right all along.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Excuse all the typos in the above post. I just noticed them and it is too late to make any correction.

 

[JReducation]

Excuse all the typos in the above post. I just noticed them and it is too late to make any correction.

If I may, I would like to explain something that may help you and others on the validity of the OF in the vernacular. It is true that the translation says “for all” when it should say “for the many”. However, The actual words of consecration and the intent is there, as well as the proper matter: priest, bread and wine. The prepositional phrase, “for all” is not the action of consecration. The action of consecration is on the preposition, “This is” As long as that is present somewhere in the Eucharistic prayer, the consecration is valid.

There was recentlhy a discussion in Rome about one of the Eastern Church that does not use the words of consecration as we do. Pope Benedict declared that their consecration was valid, because the intent and the matter are present and becaues they simply use an ancient canon that has been abandoned by the Church, not because it was wrong, but because it was not as clear as our current canon is.

My point is that the Holy See looks at intent and matter for validity, as well as the words. Everything has to go together. The reason that we are going back to the “for the many” is because it’s a poor translation, not because it invalidates the mass in any way. “for the many” without the words “This is” do not confect the Eucharist. Whereas, “This is my body” without the prepositional phrase, does confect the Eucharist, because it’s an action. The priest is saying what somethign IS, even though he is incorrectly saying why, which would be “for the many.” In other words, that phrase explains why Christ offers the sacrifice, but it does not confect the sacrifice. The sacrifice has to be confected by an action, thus “This is my body (blood)” There is the action.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

If I may, I would like to explain something that may help you and others on the validity of the OF in the vernacular. It is true that the translation says “for all” when it should say “for the many”. However, The actual words of consecration and the intent is there, as well as the proper matter: priest, bread and wine. The prepositional phrase, “for all” is not the action of consecration. The action of consecration is on the preposition, “This is” As long as that is present somewhere in the Eucharistic prayer, the consecration is valid.

There was recentlhy a discussion in Rome about one of the Eastern Church that does not use the words of consecration as we do. Pope Benedict declared that their consecration was valid, because the intent and the matter are present and becaues they simply use an ancient canon that has been abandoned by the Church, not because it was wrong, but because it was not as clear as our current canon is.

My point is that the Holy See looks at intent and matter for validity, as well as the words. Everything has to go together. The reason that we are going back to the “for the many” is because it’s a poor translation, not because it invalidates the mass in any way. “for the many” without the words “This is” do not confect the Eucharist. Whereas, “This is my body” without the prepositional phrase, does confect the Eucharist, because it’s an action. The priest is saying what somethign IS, even though he is incorrectly saying why, which would be “for the many.” In other words, that phrase explains why Christ offers the sacrifice, but it does not confect the sacrifice. The sacrifice has to be confected by an action, thus “This is my body (blood)” There is the action.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have a lot to say about this post, but I am going to pass for now. Without taking the time to look up all the quotes, I’ll just say this: The Church has always taught what is necessary for a valid sacrament; namely, FORM, MATTER, INTENT, and a validly ordained Priest for some sacraments.

Now regarding the Mass, the Church taught us at the Council of Florence (in the document De Defectibus) what is the correct FORM (words) for the consecration at Mass (both for the host and the Precious Blood); and it further stated what would cause the Mass to be invalid. It is based on what the Council of Forence taught that I have doubts concerning the invalidity of the Novus Ordo with the mistranslation.

Just one last point: The FORM of consecration given at the Council of Forence was all of the words for the Precious Blood, not just “This is the Chalice of My Blood”, but those that follow as well.

If you want to look into this, do a google seach for De Defectibus. Then, after reading that, look at what the Catechism of Trent says about the words “for all”.

NOTE: OK, I just looked up the documents for you and inserted the links into this post.

 

[JReducation]

I have a lot to say about this post, but I am going to pass for now. Without taking the time to look up all the quotes, I’ll just say this: The Church has always taught what is necessary for a valid sacrament; namely, FORM, MATTER, INTENT, and a validly ordained Priest for some sacraments.

Now regarding the Mass, the Church taught us at the Council of Florence (in the document De Defectibus) what is the correct FORM (words) for the consecration at Mass (both for the host and the Precious Blood); and it further stated what would cause the Mass to be invalid. It is based on what the Council of Forence taught that I have doubts concerning the invalidity of the Novus Ordo with the mistranslation.

Just one last point: The FORM of consecration given at the Council of Forence was all of the words for the Precious Blood, not just “This is the Chalice of My Blood”, but those that follow as well.

If you want to look into this, do a google seach for De Defectibus. Then, after reading that, look at what the Catechism of Trent says about the words “for all”.

NOTE: OK, I just looked up the documents for you and inserted the links into this post.

Along with what the Council of Florence ane the Catechism of Trent have said regarding the celebration of the liturgy, the Church continues to move. We have to look at both past and understand why those measures were taken and at the present. We have to remember that decrees of discipline are not infallible decrees. They do not fit the description given by Vatican I or held by the Church.

As to the words of consecration, here is an example where the mass is valid and the words are not literally present.

**3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments. (It was Cardnal Ratzinger who did the study)

In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found “true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist” (U.R., n. 15).

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.**

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

If we hold to the words being exactly as they appear in scripture, then Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II, along with the Eastern Rite are not in apostolic succession.

On the other hand, if they are in apostolic succession, then their recognition that the words need not be literally present, but that the intent, matter and apostolic succession of the priest are the essential components for a valid consecration is valid.

What happens here is that in the Western Church we have a discipline. The discipline says what the words must be to communicate the thelogy of the sacrifice of Calvary. We must respect that. That’s why the translation is being corrected. But there is no mention on the part of the Holy See that the mass is invalid, because the translation is incorrect. Even with the incorrect translation, it meets the same requirements that have been demanded of the Eastern rites. The words must be present in a euchological way and they are in our current translation of the anaphora.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Along with what the Council of Florence ane the Catechism of Trent have said regarding the celebration of the liturgy, the Church continues to move. We have to look at both past and understand why those measures were taken and at the present. We have to remember that decrees of discipline are not infallible decrees. They do not fit the description given by Vatican I or held by the Church.

As to the words of consecration, here is an example where the mass is valid and the words are not literally present.

I’m very familiar with the The Anaphora of Addai and Mari. If that “mass” is valid, there is not reason to believe anything the Church has ever taught Why? Because the Church has taught us - consistently and infallibly - what is required for a valid Mass: namely, FORM, MATTER, and INTENT. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is missing the FORM.

Why is it missing the FORM? The most likely reason is that in the early years the FORM was often not written. Sometimes it was written in gold lettering, something it was not written at all. The reason it was not written is because some considered it too holy to put down in writing. Therefore, the FORM was not written, even though it was always spoken.

There can be no doubt that Rome will come out and declare the Anaphora of Addai and Mari to be invalid at some time in the future. There is not way that a Mass with no FORM can be a valid Mass. That is like saying a Baptism can be valid if the Priest does not say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

Just as I was always certain the Church would correct the mistranslation of pro multis; and just as I was always certain that the Church would eventually come out and admit that the old Mass “was never abrogated”, so too I am certain that Rome will eventually come out and declare that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is invalid. The invalidity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is even more clear than the other two issues.
De Defectubus:

The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing. A defect may occur with regard to the matter to be consecrated, with regard to the form to be observed and with regard to the consecrating minister. There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant…

V - Defects of the form

1. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

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

(Translation: "For this is my Body; 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.

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament".

Catechism of Trent:

"We are firmly to believe that the form of Consecration of the wine consists in the following words: 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. …

But of this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said of the form used in the Consecration of the bread. For the form to be used in the Consecration of this element, evidently consists of these words, which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of the Lord. Wherefore, as the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that NO OTHER FORM IS TO BE CONSTITUTED." - Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chapter IV, Questions XXI & XXII.

This is not a matter of discipline. This is infallible doctrine. The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments:

Council of Trent: “It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, with the exception of their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places”.

Pope Pius XII: Sacramentum Ordinis: "The Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments.”

 

[JReducation]

I’m very familiar with the The Anaphora of Addai and Mari. If that “mass” is valid, there is not reason to believe anything the Church has ever taught Why? Because the Church has taught us - consistently and infallibly - what is required for a valid Mass: namely, FORM, MATTER, and INTENT. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is missing the FORM.

Why is it missing the FORM? The most likely reason is that in the early years the FORM was often not written. Sometimes it was written in gold lettering, something it was not written at all. The reason it was not written is because some considered it too holy to put down in writing. Therefore, the FORM was not written, even though it was always spoken.

There can be no doubt that Rome will come out and declare the Anaphora of Addai and Mari to be invalid at some time in the future. There is not way that a Mass with no FORM can be a valid Mass. That is like saying a Baptism can be valid if the Priest does not say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

Just as I was always certain the Church would correct the mistranslation of pro multis; and just as I was always certain that the Church would eventually come out and admit that the old Mass “was never abrogated”, so too I am certain that Rome will eventually come out and declare that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is invalid. The invalidity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is even more clear than the other two issues.

This is not a matter of discipline. This is infallible doctrine. The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments:

Council of Trent: “It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, with the exception of their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places”.

Pope Pius XII: Sacramentum Ordinis: "The Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments.”

Neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor Pope John Paul were talking about the substance of the sacrament. They both agreed that the substance is there. They were speaking about the form. The form is different. But the form is not an infallible teaching. The substance is. The substance has not been changed.

How you can question the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari without stating that the Pope and the Sacred Congregatioin of the Faith are guilty of heresy is beyond me.

The issue with the Tridentine form was not a matter of doctrine either. It was a misunderstanding of the law. And even in this case, the Holy Father maintains that the Tridentine Form is extraordinary, not the ordinary form of the Western Church. If it were a matter of infallible doctrine, it would have to be the ordinary form, which it is not. You cannot take dogma and make its applicatin and use extraordinary. That would be heresy. If Pope Benedict makes the use of the Tridentine form extraordinary and not binding on any priest, then he is either a heretic or he is correct in his assumption that it is not binding.

Your post seems to suggest that what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did was doctrinally wrong. If that is the case, then the pope is not truly protected by the Holy Spirit in mattes of faith and morals. Such a statement reduces the Church to a house of cards that can be brought down by a simple statement of the pope or by dissent from those who hold another view.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, defended the Anaphora based on many scholarly works that he studied and found that it does go back to the apostles as is and the particular community that uses it has valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. Your denial would undo their entire apostolic succession. Do you realize the magnitude of what you’re suggesting?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Your post seems to suggest that what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did was doctrinally wrong. If that is the case, then the pope is not truly protected by the Holy Spirit in mattes of faith and morals.

JR, I think most who post against the different Masses do not realize how little these arguments mean to mainstream Catholics. I had the good fortune to convert to Catholicism and solve the more fundamental question, like the one you address here, first. Then working backwards from that, these disciplinary issues are interesting, but not really all that important.

I likewise scoff when I here all the laments against the average Catholic today. I know the horror stories, but only by story, not by personal account. Down in this corner of the country, we remain faithful, doing the work among the poor and spreading the gospel, while allowing the Holy Father to tend to such matters.

The thing is, I know what a disaster it is when everyone starts playing Chief and no one wants to follow. Some here may really know more the Holy Father or be “holier than the Pope”. Who cares? What is irrelevant when it comes to possessing authority is who God decides to put in charge. If one is familiar with the Bible, it is seldom the person we think would be chosen of God that is chosen. Our faith is in the God who is in control, not the vessel of His choosing.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor Pope John Paul were talking about the substance of the sacrament. They both agreed that the substance is there. They were speaking about the form. The form is different. But the form is not an infallible teaching.

The issue with the Tridentine form was not a matter of doctrine either. It was a misunderstanding of the law. And even in this case, the Holy Father maintains that the Tridentine Form is extraordinary, not the ordinary form of the Western Church.

You are mixing apples and oranges. The FORM of the sacrament does not refer to the liturgy. The FORM consists of the words that bring about the sacrament. For example THIS IS MY BODY is the FORM for the host.

The two forms of Mass (the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mas) is a different use of the word form. I am referring to FORM in the sense of the FORM of the sacrament, not the FORM of the Mass. These are two completely different things.

The FORM of the sacraments of consecration and baptism were given directly by Jesus and cannot be changed.

Your post seems to suggest that what Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did was doctrinally wrong. If that is the case, then the pope is not truly protected by the Holy Spirit in mattes of faith and morals. Such a statement reduces the Church to a house of cards that can be brought down by a simple statement of the pope or by dissent from those who hold another view.

Papal Infallibility applies when the Pope is defining a doctrine of faith or morals; not just when he is speaking on matters related to faith and morals. The document we are discussing was not an act of the extraordinary (infallible) magisterium. It was an act of the ordinary magisterium, which is only infallible when it is teaching what has always been taught.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, defended the Anaphora based on many scholarly works that he studied and found that it does go back to the apostles as is and the particular community that uses it has valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. Your denial would undo their entire apostolic succession.

That makes no sense. How would it undo their “entire apostolic succession”? Do you know what apostolic succession is? Error does not undo it. The Eastern schismatics maintain apostolic succession (at least materially), and their errors have not undone it.

Regarding the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, we can either believe what the Church has always taught, or we can believe a document which teaches the exact contrary.

If you believe that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is valid, you will have to reject what the Church has always taught. In fact, if I am not mistaken, even the new Catechism teaches what the Church has always taught on this point.

As we have seen over and over again, when a person holds fast to what the Church has always taught, they will be proven correct. They may appear to be in contradiction to the Pope at the time, but in the end they will be proven right since the truth does not change - nor does it evolve into something contrary to what it was.

Two examples are the old Mass not being abrogated, and the mistranslation of pro multis.

John Paul II himself issued two indults for the old Mass. An indult is special permission to do what the law does not permit. This act of John Paul II confirm the error of those who believe the old Mass had been abrogated. The Traditionalists argued the contrary the entire time and were ridiculed for it. In the end, our new Pope admitted that the old Mass had never been abrogated, which means the two indults were completely unecessary. But more than unecessary, these indults only served to confirm those in error in their error.

The same was true with the pro-multis. John Paul II used the wrong words for consecration during his entire Papacy, thereby confirming those who defended this error in their error. * “Rome approved the translation”, *they would say, “therefore the translation must be correct. Rome could never approve a wrong translation. Not only that, but the Pope himself used that translation”. But, after John Paul II died, we learned the truth - a truth that the Traditionalists knew all along. And how did they know it? Because they trusted the Church and knew that what it taught in the past was not wrong; and what it taught is that the words “for all” are incorrect.

Now, if you believe that a mass containing no FORM is valid, you will have to explicitly reject what the Church has always taught. Once again, here is what the Church teaches about the validity of a sacrament:

Council of Forence: *"There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant…

1. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

"For this is my Body; 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.

“If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament”.*

 

[pnewton]

If you believe that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is valid, you will have to reject what the Church has always taught.

Do you think Pope Benedict XVI rejects what the Church has always taught when he disagrees with Ultima Ratio on this?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Do you think Pope Benedict XVI rejects what the Church has always taught when he disagrees with Ultima Ratio on this?

You can’t have it both ways: Either the proper FORM is necessary for validity, or it is not. If it is, the Anaphora in question is invalid; if it is not, the Church has been wrong for 2000 years.

I find it a little fascinating how quick Cathoics are to reject a 2000 year old truth.

I have a question for you: If the Pope came out and denied the resurrection of the body, would you also deny the resurrection of the body? If he said that the resurrection of the body does not mean the resurrection of the actual physical body, would you also reject that teaching of the Church?

Unfortunately, I think most Catholics today would.

 

[Timothysis]

You can’t have it both ways: Either the proper FORM is necessary for validity, or it is not. If it is, the Anaphora in question is invalid; if it is not, the Church has been wrong for 2000 years.

I find it a little fascinating how quick Cathoics are to reject a 2000 year old truth.

I have a question for you: If the Pope came out and denied the resurrection of the body, would you also deny the resurrection of the body? If he said that the resurrection of the body does not mean the resurrection of the actual physical body, would you also reject that teaching of the Church?

Unfortunately, I think most Catholics today would.

I find it fascinating how you think that you are the ultimate authority on what the Church decides. Your pedestrian understanding of the liturgy is totally overshadowed by JREducation’s knowledge and wisdom. Pope John Paul understood, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict understands, JREducation explains very well exactly what it is the two previous pontiffs based their decisions and understanding on, but Ultima Ratio has decided that all are wrong and that he alone tows the true Catholic faith.

Waiter, my check, please!

 

[Lujack]

You can’t have it both ways: Either the proper FORM is necessary for validity, or it is not. If it is, the Anaphora in question is invalid; if it is not, the Church has been wrong for 2000 years.

I find it a little fascinating how quick Cathoics are to reject a 2000 year old truth.

I have a question for you: If the Pope came out and denied the resurrection of the body, would you also deny the resurrection of the body? If he said that the resurrection of the body does not mean the resurrection of the actual physical body, would you also reject that teaching of the Church?

Unfortunately, I think most Catholics today would.

If the Pope is the Pope, then he cannot define a form as valid when it is not. Therefore, you either must argue that Pope Benedict XVI is not, in fact, the Pope, or accept that the Anaphora in question is valid.

Your question about the resurrection of the body is utterly irrelevant, because a Pope who did so would not be the Pope.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Your question about the resurrection of the body is utterly irrelevant, because a Pope who did so would not be the Pope.

What if he did so before being elected Pope? What if he did so beginning on page 357 of the book Introduction to Christianity, which was originally written in 1967, but then republished with a new forward by himself in the year 2000?

 

[Lujack]

What if he did so before being elected Pope? What if he did so beginning on page 357 of the book Introduction to Christianity, which was originally written in 1967, but then republished with a new forward by himself in the year 2000?

Quote the passage, please. And are you, in fact, arguing sedevacantism?

 

[ac_claire]

What if he did so before being elected Pope? What if he did so beginning on page 357 of the book Introduction to Christianity, which was originally written in 1967, but then republished with a new forward by himself in the year 2000?

I’m curious what conclusions this leads you to about the Holy Father, if what you claim he argues in the book is true. Seems this would qualify as a matter of faith, and if he’s writing it he’s teaching it. But at the same time you indicated in a previous post that you reject sedevacantism. Is it just that the issue is more nuanced? Or would the book not qualify as a formal teaching?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Quote the passage, please. And are you, in fact, arguing sedevacantism?

I’m not a Sedevacantist.

Now, here’s the quote I was referring to, following by the teaching of the Church:

**Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, pg 357-358: **“…English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of bliblical Greek. The Greek word ‘soma’ means something like ‘body’, but at the same time also means ‘the self’. And this ‘soma’ cam be ‘sarx’ that is, ‘body’ in the earthly, historical, and this chemical, physical sense; but it can also be ‘breath”… In Paul’s language ‘body’ and ‘spirit’ are not opposites; the opposites are called ‘physical body’ and ‘spiritual body’….

“One thing at any rate may be fairly clear: Both John (6:63) and Paul (1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body” IS NOT A “RESURRECTION OF PHYSICAL BODIES”. This, from the point of view of modern thought, *the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological erudition *[far less naïve than later theological erudition?] with it subtle ways of construing how there can be eternal physical bodies . To recapitulate, Paul teaches, NOT the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this NOT IN THE RETURN Of “FLESH BODY”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (“the perishable cannot become imperishable”) but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord”.

Now, here’s what the Church teaches. I guess the following is to be considered “naive theological erudition”.

**Catechism of Pius X: **1 Q: What are we taught by the Eleventh Article: The Resurrection of the body?

A: The Eleventh Article of the Creed teaches us that all men will rise again, every soul resuming the body it had in this life.

2 Q: How will the resurrection of the dead be accomplished?

A: The resurrection of the dead will be accomplished by the virtue of the Omnipotent God, to whom nothing is impossible.

3 Q: When will the resurrection of the dead take place?

A: The resurrection of the dead shall take place at the end of the world, and shall be followed by the General Judgment.

4 Q: Why does God will the resurrection of the body?

A: God wills the resurrection of the body, in order that the soul, having done good or evil while united with the body, may also be rewarded or punished along with it.

5 Q: Will all rise in the same way?

A: No, there will be a vast difference between the bodies of the elect and the bodies of the damned; because only the bodies of the elect shall have, like the risen Christ, the endowments of glorified bodies.

6 Q: What are the endowments that are to adorn the bodies of the elect?

A: The endowments that shall adorn the bodies of the elect are:

(1) Impassability, by which they can never again be subject to evil, nor to any kind of pain, nor to need of food, of rest or the like;

(2) Brightness, by which they shall shine as the sun and as so many stars;

(3) Agility, by which they shall be able to pass in a moment and without fatigue from one place to another and from earth to heaven; (

1. Subtlety, by which without hindrance they shall be able to penetrate any body, as did Jesus Christ when risen from the dead.

7 Q: And the bodies of the damned, what of them?

A: The bodies of the damned shall be destitute of all the endowments of the glorified bodies of the blessed, and shall bear upon them the appalling mark of eternal reprobation.

Here’s the teaching from the Catechism of Trent:

Catechism of the Council of Trent:

"The Resurrection of the Body"

That in this Article the resurrection of mankind is called the resurrection of the body, is a circumstance which deserves special attention. It was not, indeed, so named without a reason for the Apostles intended thus to convey a necessary truth, the immortality of the soul. Lest anyone, despite the fact that many passages of Scripture plainly teach that the soul is immortal, might imagine that it dies with the body, and that both are to be restored to life, the Creed speaks only of the resurrection of the body.

Although in Sacred Scripture the word flesh often signifies the whole man, as in Isaias, All flesh is grass, and in St. John, The Word was made flesh; **yet in this place it is used to express the body only, **thus giving us to understand that of the two constituent parts of man, soul and body, one only, that is, the body, is corrupted and returns to its original dust, while the soul remains incorrupt and immortal. As then, a man cannot be said to return to life unless he has previously died, so the soul could not with propriety be said to rise again.

The word body is also mentioned, in order to confute the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus, who, during the lifetime of the Apostle, asserted that whenever the Scriptures speak of the resurrection, they are to be understood to mean not the resurrection of the body, but that of the soul, by which it rises from the death of sin to the life of grace. The words of this Article, therefore, as is clear, exclude that error, and establish a real resurrection of the body…

The Body Shall Rise Substantially the Same

But as it is of vital importance to be fully convinced that the identical body, which belongs to each one of us during life, shall, though corrupt and dissolved into its original dust, be raised up again to life, this too is a subject which demands accurate explanation on the part of the pastor.