The TLM the only Mass for all time?

[Ultima_Ratio]

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?

I choose to suspend judgment on the point. What I do know is that I have read many of his previous books and he casts doubt on almost everything the Church teaches. I hate saying that, but it is true. I admit that I have been absolutely shocked at what I have read in his books (almost all of his books are available to read for free online). I spoke to a well known Priest about it (he used to be on EWTN), and he conceded that what I was saying was true, and had no reply.

We are living through some kind of mystery, and I don’t pretend to have the answers for it. All I can say is “hold fast to tradition” because that is the safest course; stay close to God in prayer, and never miss a day in saying your Rosary. Also find a good Church in your area where they offer the Traditional Mass.

**St. Vincent of Lerins: **“What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to tradition, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty”.

 

[Cluny]

One of the reasons that the Assyrian Church is called “The Church of the East” is that it was separated by two warring empires from the main body of Christians, and the theological develpment that emphasized the importance of the Words of Instution simply didn’t make it to them.

When Card. Ratzinger gave his opinion as CDF of the Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari, he was speaking in terms of a particular pastoral situation when an Assyrian priest or a Chaldean Catholic priest has to serve a mixed congregation in the diaspora–or even in the homelands where the two groups of faithful suffer greatly from the double scourge of war and Moslem oppression.

When you look at the historical development of Addai and Mari, especially in the context of the Assyrian Church, which has ALWAYS believed that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and when you actually read the text of the Anaphora, it is clear to anyone with two wits to clap together that they intend to accomplish the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ (or in Western terms, “confect the Eucharist”).

You can read the ACOE’s excellent English translation here:

web.archive.org/web/20061206003428/http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html

Now, the Catholic Church has said that this decision about the ACOE’s recension of the Liturgy does NOT affect their counterpart, the Chaldean Catholics, who must continue to recite the Words of Institution in their use of this Liturgy.

The Chaldean revision can be found here:

kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/ReformedMissal_Eng.html

The Catholic Church has REQUESTED that for a mixed congregation, priests of the ACOE (to quiet the consciences of weaker brethren) to recite the Institution.

Furthermore, the Synod of the ACOE gave this permission to their own clergy some time ago beforehand.

Moreover, the other two liturgies of the ACOE DO contain the Words of Instution.

So, it’s actually a dead issue.

Therefore, accusations by certain extremists, especially sedevacantists, who trumpeted, “Pope approves mass without consecration” are totally false.

In fine, the CDF has said that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, as it stands without the Institution, is VALID for the ACOE–but would NOT be valid for Chaldean Catholics.

 

[ac_claire]

I choose to suspend judgment on the point. What I do know is that I have read many of his previous books and he casts doubt on almost everything the Church teaches. I hate saying that, but it is true. I admit that I have been absolutely shocked at what I have read in his books (almost all of his books are available to read for free online). I spoke to a well known Priest about it (he used to be on EWTN), and he conceded that what I was saying was true, and had no reply.

Choosing to suspend judgement sounds like the wise and prudent thing to do. I’m amazed by your above statement though (in bold). It’s so vague…is it possible to explain more what you mean?

We are living through some kind of mystery, and I don’t pretend to have the answers for it. All I can say is “hold fast to tradition” because that is the safest course; stay close to God in prayer, and never miss a day in saying your Rosary. Also find a good Church in your area where they offer the Traditional Mass.

Good advice, thank you.

 

[JReducation]

One of the reasons that the Assyrian Church is called “The Church of the East” is that it was separated by two warring empires from the main body of Christians, and the theological develpment that emphasized the importance of the Words of Instution simply didn’t make it to them.

When Card. Ratzinger gave his opinion as CDF of the Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari, he was speaking in terms of a particular pastoral situation when an Assyrian priest or a Chaldean Catholic priest has to serve a mixed congregation in the diaspora–or even in the homelands where the two groups of faithful suffer greatly from the double scourge of war and Moslem oppression.

When you look at the historical development of Addai and Mari, especially in the context of the Assyrian Church, which has ALWAYS believed that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and when you actually read the text of the Anaphora, it is clear to anyone with two wits to clap together that they intend to accomplish the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ (or in Western terms, “confect the Eucharist”).

You can read the ACOE’s excellent English translation here:

web.archive.org/web/20061206003428/http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html

Now, the Catholic Church has said that this decision about the ACOE’s recension of the Liturgy does NOT affect their counterpart, the Chaldean Catholics, who must continue to recite the Words of Institution in their use of this Liturgy.

The Chaldean revision can be found here:

kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/ReformedMissal_Eng.html

The Catholic Church has REQUESTED that for a mixed congregation, priests of the ACOE (to quiet the consciences of weaker brethren) to recite the Institution.

Furthermore, the Synod of the ACOE gave this permission to their own clergy some time ago beforehand.

Moreover, the other two liturgies of the ACOE DO contain the Words of Instution.

So, it’s actually a dead issue.

Therefore, accusations by certain extremists, especially sedevacantists, who trumpeted, “Pope approves mass without consecration” are totally false.

In fine, the CDF has said that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, as it stands without the Institution, is VALID for the ACOE–but would NOT be valid for Chaldean Catholics.

What you’re saying is exactly what Ratzinger recommended to John Paul II. The ACOE contains the words of consecration, not in the way that we are used to hearing them. But they are there. Their mass is valid. This is not a change from the past. This is a clarification for a situation that had never surffaced in the past. We tend to want the statements of the past to address every issue that came after. That’s not always possible. This is a perfect example. There was a pastoral need that had to be addressed. It did not take place in the past. It took place in the present. When you look into the past to find an answer and you can’t find one, then you have to use faith and reason together. This is what Pope Benedict has been saying since he became pope, reason enlightened by faith.

I know that you did not make this statement, but I want to address something else here. Pope Benedict’s prior writings on the resurrection do not offer anything new. The resurrection of a glorified body is presented to us in the Gospels. Jesus walks through walls and then says, “Do you have anything to eat?” Does he go to the bathroom in Heaven? Does he eat three meals a day and get 8 hours of sleep? No.

What Pope Benedict is clarifying is that the scriptures are not pointing to a resurrection of the body as the bodies that we now have. If you read the statements made by past popes and councils, they use the term “glorified body.” So what is the big issue. It is that the Pope calls us simplisitc? In many ways, we tend to be very simplistic. We need a pope who is a scholar to put us back in place. Theology is not alway simple.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[baylee]

if the person speaking . . .
oh why do I bother
you turn into a broadcast by a notorious anti-Catholic group and want to know if what they are saying is true? there is a reason this is a banned topic here.

If you want to hear heresy, listen to heretics, if you want to hear truth, listen to good solid Catholic preachers. your choice.

No offense, but I am so glad I found this thread. My husband is listening to the downloads from Brothers Dimonds’ site and reading their books. We’ve started to argue about the “Counterfeit Catholic Church”. These men scare me…I need advice and information from traditional catholics who do not follow them to help refute their claims. Thankfully, my husband is willing to listen to things I find, but I feel as if he wants to believe these guys are right.

I hope this isn’t banned…it needs to be discussed to help those of us who need to fight this if in fact there is no truth behind their claims!

 

[baylee]

They are completely twisting the meaning.

Pius V used EXACTLY the same language in Quod a nobis, which promulgated the Tridentine Breviary 2 years earlier. Yet it, like the Missal, was constantly tinkered with over the years. Furthermore, NOBODY said anything when Pius XI promulgated a Breviary with a radically rearranged Psalter–and this was certainly a substantive change in the Pian Breviary. And even before that, Pope Urban VI (I think) considerably monkeyed around with the hymns.

You might want to read this site:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

The term “Mass for all time” and similar expressions are meaningless–there was a time when the Tridentine Mass did NOT exist–and also offensive to Eastern Christians: what are their liturgies, which are much older? Chopped liver?

The phrase says no more than that the user is devoted to the Extraordinary Form.

Thank you for that link…I plan on looking into it later…as well as the rest of this thread.

 

[pnewton]

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?

I see the difference between doctrine and discipline. I will not answer this question, though, as you failed to answer mine.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Pope Benedict’s prior writings on the resurrection do not offer anything new. The resurrection of a glorified body is presented to us in the Gospels. Jesus walks through walls and then says, “Do you have anything to eat?” Does he go to the bathroom in Heaven? Does he eat three meals a day and get 8 hours of sleep? No.

What Pope Benedict is clarifying is that the scriptures are not pointing to a resurrection of the body as the bodies that we now have. If you read the statements made by past popes and councils, they use the term “glorified body.” So what is the big issue. It is that the Pope calls us simplisitc? In many ways, we tend to be very simplistic. We need a pope who is a scholar to put us back in place. Theology is not alway simple.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What he said is that the resurrection of the body is not the resurrection of physical bodies, which is manifestly false. The resurrection of the body IS the resurrection of physical bodies - it is the resurrection of the exact same physical body that we have now (see the earlier quote from the Catechism of Trent). It is the exact same body with four preturnaturl gifts.

Here’s what the Catechism of Pius X says about the preternatural gifts of the resurrected physical body.

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;

(4) 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.

The physical bodies are glorified because they will possess the four preternatural gifts. It is not an either or: it is not a glorified body or a physical body. It is both: it is a glorified physical body. Therefore, to say the resurrection of the body is not the resurrection of the physical body is totally false, and contrary to what the Church has always taught.

 

[Cluny]

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

Actually, it’s NOT a 2000 year old truth.

The oldest Eucharistic Prayer we have, found in the Didache, does not contain the Words of Institution, either.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

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

Actually, it’s NOT a 2000 year old truth.

The oldest Eucharistic Prayer we have, found in the Didache, does not contain the Words of Institution, either.

The words of consecration are a 2000 year old teaching. Unlike the other 5 sacraments, the Church teaches that the precise FORM for Baptism and the consecration at Mass was given directly by Jesus Himself, which is why there can be no change.

The MATTER and FORM for Baptism and the consecration at Mass were given by Christ “in specie” (specifically), while the MATTER and FORM for the other sacraments were only given “in genere” (in general), leaving it up to the Apostles to implement the MATTER and FORM.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

SACRAMENTS

What does immediate institution imply? Power of the Church.

Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, cap. ii) declared that the Church had the power to change the “substance” of the sacraments. She would not be claiming power to alter the substance of the sacraments if she used her Divinely given authority to determine more precisely the matter and form in so far as they had not been determined by Christ. This theory (which is not modern) had been adopted by theologians: by it we can solve historical difficulties relating, principally, to Confirmation and Holy Orders. link

Since the MATTER and FORM for the Mass and Baptism were given directly by Christ, it follows that they are 2000 years old.

 

[Lujack]

Are you arguing, than, that the oldest Eucharistic prayer in existence is in fact an invalid one?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Are you arguing, than, that the oldest Eucharistic prayer in existence is in fact an invalid one?

I am talking about the words of consecration specifically. They constitute the FORM of the sacrament. They were given directly by Jesus and have always been used by the Church. If you think they have not, you are mistaken.

 

[AJV]

One of the reasons that the Assyrian Church is called “The Church of the East” is that it was separated by two warring empires from the main body of Christians, and the theological develpment that emphasized the importance of the Words of Instution simply didn’t make it to them.

When Card. Ratzinger gave his opinion as CDF of the Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari, he was speaking in terms of a particular pastoral situation when an Assyrian priest or a Chaldean Catholic priest has to serve a mixed congregation in the diaspora–or even in the homelands where the two groups of faithful suffer greatly from the double scourge of war and Moslem oppression.

When you look at the historical development of Addai and Mari, especially in the context of the Assyrian Church, which has ALWAYS believed that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and when you actually read the text of the Anaphora, it is clear to anyone with two wits to clap together that they intend to accomplish the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ (or in Western terms, “confect the Eucharist”).

You can read the ACOE’s excellent English translation here:

web.archive.org/web/20061206003428/http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html

Now, the Catholic Church has said that this decision about the ACOE’s recension of the Liturgy does NOT affect their counterpart, the Chaldean Catholics, who must continue to recite the Words of Institution in their use of this Liturgy.

The Chaldean revision can be found here:

kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/ReformedMissal_Eng.html

The Catholic Church has REQUESTED that for a mixed congregation, priests of the ACOE (to quiet the consciences of weaker brethren) to recite the Institution.

Furthermore, the Synod of the ACOE gave this permission to their own clergy some time ago beforehand.

Moreover, the other two liturgies of the ACOE DO contain the Words of Instution.

So, it’s actually a dead issue.

Therefore, accusations by certain extremists, especially sedevacantists, who trumpeted, “Pope approves mass without consecration” are totally false.

In fine, the CDF has said that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, as it stands without the Institution, is VALID for the ACOE–but would NOT be valid for Chaldean Catholics.

Yes, but that opens up a wonderful kettle of fish, does it not? Not that my opinion is worth 2 cents, but I can see the concerns of others over this decree:

(a) It runs counter to the express statements of the Magisterium for the past hundreds of years

(b) Fr. Taft, the ghost-writer may feel the evidence is accurate, and he is supported in this by many scholars. But the fact is that the evidence is really open to much debate and even some modern scholars [serious ones, not carpers] question this result.

The decree is highly reminiscent of the time in the '60s with similar situations such as “The Apostolic Tradition represents the ancient liturgy of Rome. So let’s revise our Eucharistic Prayer, our prayer for bishops, etc. , etc., etc.” and now what do we find but that author is probably a Syrian who never even saw the Seven Hills from a distance.

Is it not unwise to decree on something which scholars do not even have a consensus on?

(c) The “dispersed euchological” form has very severe ramifications. Because really if one looks at the criterion given as evidence, almost any Catholic liturgy on the planet without the Words of Institution has the necessary components of the “dispersed euchological” form.

Yet, consistently, the Holy See has maintained that omission or severe mutilation of the Dominical Words had rendered these invalid. So the question then becomes whether there can be such vast differences in the form of a sacrament, whether the Church has the power to decree that a valid form in one rite, is not valid for another, how exactly is this power defined and when was it given, and a whole set of serious questions for dogmatic theologians. And many people have recognized this: a lot of the major liturgical journals ran editorials on this decree and its impact on the Roman liturgy when the words of Consecration are removed.

I imagine that these questions were all wrestled with at the Holy See. But since the decree, no explication has been given of the dogmatic implications, which just causes more confusion.

That the Assyrian Church intends to consecrate the Body and Blood is important, but only a minor question. Intention cannot make up for a form, especially IF (I stress the if) through carelessness or the accidents of history, it was allowed to drop out.

Likewise, it is not even certain that the Didache fragments are a Eucharistic Prayer or not. In fact, it is a complete modern conjecture that the early Eucharistic Prayers did not have the Dominical Words. I admit, that there are good arguments but all the arguments are derived arguments, not explicit ones. How wise is it to issue decrees of dogmatic import with a lack of explicit evidence?

 

[baylee]

The words of consecration are a 2000 year old teaching. Unlike the other 5 sacraments, the Church teaches that the precise FORM for Baptism and the consecration at Mass was given directly by Jesus Himself, which is why there can be no change.

The MATTER and FORM for Baptism and the consecration at Mass were given by Christ “in specie” (specifically), while the MATTER and FORM for the other sacraments were only given “in genere” (in general), leaving it up to the Apostles to implement the MATTER and FORM.

Since the MATTER and FORM for the Mass and Baptism were given directly by Christ, it follows that they are 2000 years old.

Hmmm…don’t the words of Christ re: the consecration vary depending upon which Book of the Bible you are reading? And if so, why would there be only one way now?

 

[JReducation]

I am talking about the words of consecration specifically. They constitute the FORM of the sacrament. They were given directly by Jesus and have always been used by the Church. If you think they have not, you are mistaken.

But Benedict and John Paul II have already proven that they were not used by the entire
Church. That’s what the discussion was about. They agreed that the anaphora of Addai Anami comes down from the apostles and is therefore valid. The Eastern Churches are as Apostolic as we are and their sacraments are as valid as our own.

As to the resurrection of the body, all that Pope Benedict is saying is that it’s not as simple as it has been written. He does not say that what was written was wrong. He explicitly sayst that is was oversimplified. Why did they oversimplify? Maybe for catechetical reasons. You have to admit that when you get into the Greek nuances, it can get pretty hairy and difficult to follow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Yes, but that opens up a wonderful kettle of fish, does it not? Not that my opinion is worth 2 cents, but I can see the concerns of others over this decree:

(a) It runs counter to the express statements of the Magisterium for the past hundreds of years

(b) Fr. Taft, the ghost-writer may feel the evidence is accurate, and he is supported in this by many scholars. But the fact is that the evidence is really open to much debate and even some modern scholars [serious ones, not carpers] question this result.

The decree is highly reminiscent of the time in the '60s with similar situations such as “The Apostolic Tradition represents the ancient liturgy of Rome. So let’s revise our Eucharistic Prayer, our prayer for bishops, etc. , etc., etc.” and now what do we find but that author is probably a Syrian who never even saw the Seven Hills from a distance.

Is it not unwise to decree on something which scholars do not even have a consensus on?

(c) The “dispersed euchological” form has very severe ramifications. Because really if one looks at the criterion given as evidence, almost any Catholic liturgy on the planet without the Words of Institution has the necessary components of the “dispersed euchological” form.

Yet, consistently, the Holy See has maintained that omission or severe mutilation of the Dominical Words had rendered these invalid. So the question then becomes whether there can be such vast differences in the form of a sacrament, whether the Church has the power to decree that a valid form in one rite, is not valid for another, how exactly is this power defined and when was it given, and a whole set of serious questions for dogmatic theologians. And many people have recognized this: a lot of the major liturgical journals ran editorials on this decree and its impact on the Roman liturgy when the words of Consecration are removed.

I imagine that these questions were all wrestled with at the Holy See. But since the decree, no explication has been given of the dogmatic implications, which just causes more confusion.

That the Assyrian Church intends to consecrate the Body and Blood is important, but only a minor question. Intention cannot make up for a form, especially IF (I stress the if) through carelessness or the accidents of history, it was allowed to drop out.

Likewise, it is not even certain that the Didache fragments are a Eucharistic Prayer or not. In fact, it is a complete modern conjecture that the early Eucharistic Prayers did not have the Dominical Words. I admit, that there are good arguments but all the arguments are derived arguments, not explicit ones. How wise is it to issue decrees of dogmatic import with a lack of explicit evidence?

I’m going to guess here. Don’t take it to the bank. My guess is that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II, as the two highest ranking denfenders of the faith figure that they do not owe anyone an explanation, as long as they are satisfied. This is not a new approach in the Church. Often, popes and Sacred Congregations have made decrees “motu proprio”, with no explanations to anyone and not admitting any questioning. From what I have heard, those who presented their questions to Cardinal Ratzinger were politely told by him, “It is what it is.” And left at that. I’m not holind my breadth for an explanation, now that he is pope. He does not seem to be the type who offers too many explanations unless the come from the bishops. I that regard, Pope Benedict XVI is very clerical. But he is the pope. I for one am not going to make this a priority in my life. It’s his responsibility and his decree. I trust his judgement. He is a very solid theologian.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF