Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[ctos]

Nice research. We appreciate it.

If you appreciate it, then use it. The document is apparently used to suggest that the form must always be thought of in the manner spelled out in the document. But the document appears to address only the priests saying Mass. The “changes” were not made by priests saying Mass. And, the “changes” are consistent with what theologians have concluded about the form.

 

[MTD]

Have at it.

Thank you. I have nothing more to say about this document since I think the link I gave above (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Declaration on Religious Liberty) is sufficient.

MTD:

I find it interesting that you, a Traditionalist, think this way since it has always

been expressly taught in pre-Vatican II religion texts that transubstantiation takes place at the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”
Anyway, I’m glad u gave me another occasion to post the evidence of error.

Note that I said religion texts. Show me a pre-Vatican II religion text that teaches otherwise.

To say that unless the form of consecration outlined in St. Pius V’s De Defectibus is used the consecration is invalid is erroneous because that would mean the formula used in the Eastern rites is invalid. Ridiculous. So what I said still holds true: transubstantiation takes place at the words “This is My Body/This is My Blood.”

All St. Pius V’s De Defectibus was saying is that the priest does not have the power to change the approved formula of consecration. That’s the same way it is today with the NO, be it in Latin or the vernacular: no priest has the power to change, at will, the approved formula. To give St. Pius V’s words any more meaning than that is rather preposterous because it can be proven (by pointing out the Eastern rites) that his words do not apply absolutely to the form of consecration. They apply only to the approven rite he was addressing; namely, the Tridentine Rite. (And, gorman64, just in case you’re thinking again of St. Pius X’s revisions, remember that St. Pius X did not change the formula of consecration, and so St. Pius V’s reference to those words of consecration would still apply to his revision.)

Are we getting anywhere or are we just going around in circles?

Maria

 

[gorman64]

A most weighty authority supporting the “entire form” adherents is a preceptive passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is incorporated in the official rubrics accompanying the Roman Missal. In his Bull Quo Primum (1570) Pope St. Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite “in perpetuity,” and the aforementioned “De Defectibus” always appears in the introductory pages of legitimate altar missals. This salient passage from Part V of De Defectibus reads thus:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 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. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin gravely.’

This precept begins by setting forth the consecration form in its entirety. It then warns that if anything (aliquid) in this form just defined should be altered in any way whatsoever involving a change in meaning of the originally specified words, then the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist containing the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ would not be produced, and hence the priest-celebrant would celebrate no Mass at all. De Defectibus does not single out the introductory words of the form, “This is the chalice of my blood,” and state that if only those words are changed in meaning the consecration is invalid. It therefore is evident that this official injunction in Missale Romanum supports the “entire form” position and implicitly denies the claim of the “short form” apologists.

[Edited by moderator for length]

 

[gorman64]

…continued

As it would appear that De Defectibus is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, its authority is on a level well above that of the speculative opinions advanced by various theologians. Although one cannot claim the passage cited from De Defectibus is a definition by the Church on this matter, nevertheless it is certain from it that the “Mind of the Church” is that the entire form must be treated as though it is all essential, inasmuch as the penalty of mortal sin attaches to anyone who would dare to add something to the form, even though the addition would not nullify or interfere with the meaning of anything contained in the given proper form.

A thorough and unbiased discussion of the “short form versus entire form” controversy is presented by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Catholic University, Washington, D.C., in his work Tractatus Dogmaticus DE EUCHARISTIA, Tom. I De Sacramento, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1947. His airing of the controversy is on pp. 150-161, being Article 10 entitled “Whether Among the Words of Our Lord in the Latin Form of Consecration Only These Pertain to the Essence of the Sacramental Form: ‘This Is My Body, This Is My Blood’.” The author begins with a section entitled Status Quaestionis, which includes this sound admonition: “By no means must this controversy be deemed to be an idle one, but rather it must be diligently attended to by the theologian ‘lest most shameful sins be committed by consecrating priests through ignorance of the form,’ as the Catechism of the Council of Trent warns (Part II, Chap. 4, Q. 19).”

Doronzo next discusses Pars Negativa (the negative position which denies the short form is sufficient for validity) and the Pars Affirmativa, (which affirms that the short form, “This is My Blood,” suffices for validity). Many theologians are cited on both sides, and the various arguments of each are presented along with the counter-arguments by the opposing side. On page 161 Doronzo summarizes his exposition as follows:

“Having considered all these foregoing arguments, WE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION: The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that the short form suffices] is the more probable. However, since in the opinion of so many theologians, especially ‘Thomists,’ the mind of St. Thomas, which the authors of the Catechism [of the Council of Trent] evidently intend to follow, is not clearly evident, we do not venture to deem one of the opinions more probable than the other, but we judge both to be equally probable.”

When a theological opinion is said to be probable, it must not be thought that this means “probable” in the ordinary sense of the word; that is, more than likely to be true. A theologically probable opinion is simply one that has sound reasons behind it and is espoused by theologians of high repute, but which lacks theological certainty and cannot be claimed to be certain. This explains why commentators (e.g., St. Alphonsus, Doronzo, etc.) are able to state that two diametrically opposed opinions are “equally probable,” meaning not that both are equally likely to be true, but only that both have sound theological foundations and numerous reputable theologians as adherents.

 

[pnewton]

continued…

Why is the post in quotes? Is it a mistake or are you posting someone else’s work.

 

[MTD]

In his Bull Quo Primum (1570) Pope St. Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite “in perpetuity,” and the aforementioned “De Defectibus” always appears in the introductory pages of legitimate altar missals.

Remember that papal infallibility applies positively to faith and morals only. Thus, since “in perpetuity” is referring to the promulgation of a rite (i.e., a disciplinary action), it can be retracted by a succeeding pope since positive infallibility does not apply. In effect, the “in perpetuity” only means that the discipline is to last perpetually unless or until a succeeding pope changes it. If you disagree, explain St. Pius X’s actions in revising the very Tridentine Rite which St. Pius V promulgated “in perpetuity.”

Although one cannot claim the passage cited from De Defectibus is a definition by the Church on this matter, nevertheless it is certain from it that the “Mind of the Church” is that the entire form must be treated as though it is all essential, inasmuch as the penalty of mortal sin attaches to anyone who would dare to add something to the form, even though the addition would not nullify or interfere with the meaning of anything contained in the given proper form.

How exactly does a penalty of mortal sin prove that the long form is essential for transubstantiation?

“Having considered all these foregoing arguments, WE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION: The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that the short form suffices] is the more probable. However, since in the opinion of so many theologians, especially ‘Thomists,’ the mind of St. Thomas, which the authors of the Catechism [of the Council of Trent] evidently intend to follow, is not clearly evident, we do not venture to deem one of the opinions more probable than the other, but we judge both to be equally probable.”

If “one cannot claim the passage cited from De Defectibus is a definition by the Church on this matter” and if “we do not venture to deem one of the opinions more probable than the other, but we judge both to be equally probable,” then how is it definitive that the long form is necessary for transubstantiation?

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Maria:

The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that the short form suffices] is the more probable.

Did you read all of what was posted?

When a theological opinion is said to be probable, it must not be thought that this means “probable” in the ordinary sense of the word; that is, more than likely to be true. A theologically probable opinion is simply one that has sound reasons behind it and is espoused by theologians of high repute, but which lacks theological certainty and cannot be claimed to be certain. This explains why commentators (e.g., St. Alphonsus, Doronzo, etc.) are able to state that two diametrically opposed opinions are “equally probable,” meaning not that both are equally likely to be true, but only that both have sound theological foundations and numerous reputable theologians as adherents.

Do you dispute this?

Gorman

 

[MTD]

The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St. Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that the short form suffices] is the more probable.

Yes. (And understood it.) Regardless of whether Doronzo holds Pars Negativa as more probable, he himself says it’s still only equally probable to Pars Affirmativa. Coupled with that is the fact that De Defectibus does not define this matter. In other words, there’s no definitive teaching of the Church whatsoever that the long form is required.

When a theological opinion is said to be probable, it must not be thought that this means “probable” in the ordinary sense of the word; that is, more than likely to be true. A theologically probable opinion is simply one that has sound reasons behind it and is espoused by theologians of high repute, but which lacks theological certainty and cannot be claimed to be certain. This explains why commentators (e.g., St. Alphonsus, Doronzo, etc.) are able to state that two diametrically opposed opinions are “equally probable,” meaning not that both are equally likely to be true, but only that both have sound theological foundations and numerous reputable theologians as adherents.

No, I do not dispute that paragraph. And that’s why I asked the last question in my previous post. Can you answer it?

Maria

 

[Uxor]

Thats funny you bring this up. I have a friend who, along with her entire family (11 kids), were brought up SSPX. She was telling me about a Novus Ordo baptism and Mass she was forced to attend. It all sounded very typical to me, but she was truly scandalized, I mean to the point she was in almost physical disgust.

Have you heard of Father Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist in Rome? An Italian Catholic publication published an interview with him in which he said “…the rite of baptism for children has been also spoiled… so drasctically overhauled that the exorcism against Satan has virtually been eliminated.” He said “Paul VI himself publicly protested against this new rite.” Also he stated, “It always held a very great importance for the Church, so much so that it is called the minor exorcism.”

This scared me reading this and since I attend a Tridentine Church now was going to ask my Priest if my children need to be re-baptize.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Have you heard of Father Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist in Rome? An Italian Catholic publication published an interview with him in which he said “…the rite of baptism for children has been also spoiled… so drasctically overhauled that the exorcism against Satan has virtually been eliminated.” He said “Paul VI himself publicly protested against this new rite.” Also he stated, “It always held a very great importance for the Church, so much so that it is called the minor exorcism.”

This scared me reading this and since I attend a Tridentine Church now was going to ask my Priest if my children need to be re-baptize.

I just read both of his books, and he does mention in them that he regrets the prayers of exorcism have been changed and watered down. Maybe that’s another reason Satan is so prevalent among the children of today’s society. Ya think???

 

[Uxor]

I don’t believe anything will change no matter how far the Vatican bends over. I’ve come to believe that the Latin “Catholics” will never be happy unless there is only a Latin mass.

Following one document after another is exhausting, and pretty worthless. Whenever someone is close to admitting to being mistaken, they just point to another tome and claim I have to read it.

So I’ve turned to looking at the fruits to judge the tree. How many vocations does the Latin parish have? What acts of charity do they perform? How many conversions do they have? How do they get along with each other. How do they get along with other parishes. Are they repulsed or attracted to opportunities of sacramental grace? These are outward signs of the inward grace, right? I’ve not been impressed.

To the original poster, you should find another girlfriend. You don’t need this battle being fought within your own home. Search after someone who will strengthen you in your faith and bring peace and grace to your home.

At my new parish I joined we have two at seminary and others preparing…Most of the people at my parish are in their 20s and converts which is amazing to me. There is no age difference at my parish. We are all one big family, very devote, pray and eat together every week. I’ve heard SSPX has over 500 Priests and 600,000 members. Society of St Peter (where I belong) started by Pope John Paul was founded in 1988 by a dozen priests has now around 200 priests and 110 seminarians. About 90+ parishes around the world…they are exploding.

After stations of the cross last Friday night, one of my fellow catholic friends knelt down before the Blessed Virgin and prayed for quite awhile while the rest of us went to a Fish Dinner supplied to us by the Altar Society.

I think it is wrong to assume or judge someone’s faith and their soul because they attend a Tridentine Mass. At my parish we are committed and so are our Priests, if you are not you will not make there.

 

[gorman64]

how is it definitive that the long form is necessary for transubstantiation?

It is not.

The one and only ultimate verdict, namely, “Roma locuta est; Causa finita est,” remains lacking. This matter can be conclusively resolved only by our Holy Mother the Church. The Adversarii (many of whom have “settled” the matter for their readers so self-confidently and so facilely) would do well to keep this fact in mind.

And the short form is not definitive.

Albeit the matter concerning which words of the wine-consecration form are essential cannot be settled conclusively by any theologian, nevertheless one cannot minimize the importance of the opinion of St. Thomas. He is and always has been the one central figure, not only in this dispute, but in all theological questions. To begin to appreciate the unique role of the Angelic Doctor in the affairs of the Church one should read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris. In that document we find, among others, the following exceptional tributes to the Angelic Doctor:

‘The ecumenical councils have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers.’

‘But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.’

The view of St. Thomas on the essential words of the wine-consecration form is stated in three different places: (1) Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum; (2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3) The Summa Theologica.

(1) In Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum (dist. 8, Q. 2, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3) we read: “And therefore those words which follow [that is, which follow ‘This is the chalice of My Blood’] are essential to the blood, inasmuch as it is consecrated in this sacrament; and therefore they must be of the substance of the form.”

(2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6) has the following: “In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are necessary for the form, but the words ‘This is the chalice of My Blood’ only, not the remainder which follows, ‘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 it would appear that this is not said correctly, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate [the predicate being ‘This is the chalice of my blood’] : hence those subsequent words belong to the meaning or signification of the same pronouncement. And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of sacraments have their effect, hence all of these words appertain to the effecting power of the form.” (Emphasis added).

(3) In Summa Theologica (III, Q. 78, A. 3) St. Thomas again lucidly expounds his view: "I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this 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 * recitation.

“And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this, which belong to the use of the sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands.”*

 

[Uxor]

I just read both of his books, and he does mention in them that he regrets the prayers of exorcism have been changed and watered down. Maybe that’s another reason Satan is so prevalent among the children of today’s society. Ya think???

I thought the same myself … Satan so prevalent among children today.

 

[gorman64]

As alluded to earlier, when we speak of the entire form being necessary for validity, we do not mean that the form of words, exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal, must be used verbatim. This point is so obvious from an examination of the various Oriental liturgies that it hardly needs mentioning. An historical example, however, will be useful to illustrate how this fundamental fact can be misunderstood. After Pope Leo XIII had declared Anglican Orders to be categorically invalid because of a defective form of words (via his Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896), the Anglican Hierarchy argued that there are Oriental liturgies which Rome has always acknowledged to be valid, but which do not employ the exact sacramental form of words for Holy Orders as is used in the Latin Rite.

This objection was answered by the Catholic Bishops of England in the famous Vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolicae Curae’:

“But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters have been left by Our Lord in such uncertainty, and that there is no one definite form which has prevailed in the Catholic Church, both in the East and in the West. If, indeed, you mean merely that no identical form of words has always and everywhere been in use … you say what all will admit, and the Bull nowhere denies. … The Bull, however…is requiring, not that the form should always consist of the same words, but that it should always be conformed to the same definite type.” (Emphasis in the original text).

Now according to de la Taille some of those who opposed the opinion of St. Thomas labored under a similar misunderstanding, thinking that the Angelic Doctor was insisting that the exact entire form of words used in the Latin Rite is required for validity in an absolute sense, that is to say, universally in all rites. “Suarez, however,” writes de la Taille, “interpreted the mind of the holy Doctor too narrowly, as though St. Thomas meant that the actual words used by the Roman Church are necessary in their actual grammatical tenor, and not merely in this or some other form equivalent in sense. Scotus, however, noted well that equivalence of sense would suffice (4, D. 8, 2; cf. Reportata 4, D. 8, 2).”

 

[paramedicgirl]

I thought the same myself … Satan so prevalent among children today.

Yup. I was just in Seattle, and the mall has a Victoria Secret store. Teenage girls about 15 were accompanied by their boyfriends (about 18) in the store. The boys were picking out the bras and underwear for their GF’s, paying for them, and acting totally indecent with their GF’s in the store. I wonder if the parents even care?

 

[MTD]

how is it definitive that the long form is necessary for transubstantiation?

Exactly. So that means I’m entitled to my opinion that transubstantiation occurs at the words “This is My Body/This is My Blood.” Likewise, you cannot claim that the NO formula is invalid based on the premise that the long form outlined in St. Pius V’s De Defectibus is necessary as it is not certain. Yet that is your original argument and the root of this debate (see post #58). You will have to find some other premise for your argument that the NO formula is invalid.

Albeit the matter concerning which words of the wine-consecration form are essential cannot be settled conclusively by any theologian, nevertheless one cannot minimize the importance of the opinion of St. Thomas. He is and always has been the one central figure, not only in this dispute, but in all theological questions.

While is true that we must value the theological opinion of St. Thomas, I think you should also remember that he erred on the Immaculate Conception, which was afterwards declared a dogma of the Church (against his theological opinion). “But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 27, Article 2)

As alluded to earlier, when we speak of the entire form being necessary for validity, we do not mean that the form of words, exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal, must be used verbatim. This point is so obvious from an examination of the various Oriental liturgies that it hardly needs mentioning.

The Eastern rites are sometimes quite different from the Latin rites. For example, one of the Anaphorae of the Maronite Rite has “for all men.” And I doubt whether all, if any, Eastern Anaphorae have a phrase similar to Mystery of Faith. That phrase is not contained in any of the Scriptural references to the words of Christ. All the phrases of the formula of the Tridentine Rite have their basis in Scripture but that one (not that everything is contained in Sacred Scripture, but nevertheless I find the absence of that phrase an interesting fact).

Now according to de la Taille some of those who opposed the opinion of St. Thomas labored under a similar misunderstanding, thinking that the Angelic Doctor was insisting that the exact entire form of words used in the Latin Rite is required for validity in an absolute sense, that is to say, universally in all rites. “Suarez, however,” writes de la Taille, “interpreted the mind of the holy Doctor too narrowly, as though St. Thomas meant that the actual words used by the Roman Church are necessary in their actual grammatical tenor, and not merely in this or some other form equivalent in sense. Scotus, however, noted well that equivalence of sense would suffice (4, D. 8, 2; cf. Reportata 4, D. 8, 2).”

Well, according to this, even should the long form be necessary for transubstantiation, the NO formula is sufficiently equivalent in sense to the words discussed by St. Thomas Aquinas. This is especially true if 1) you compare the Eastern rites to the same, and 2) consider the meaning of the phrase Mystery of Faith based on its grammatical use in the Tridentine formula.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Exactly. So that means I’m entitled to my opinion that transubstantiation occurs at the words “This is My Body/This is My Blood.” Likewise, you cannot claim that the NO formula is invalid based on the premise that the long form outlined in St. Pius V’s De Defectibus is necessary as it is not certain. Yet that is your original argument and the root of this debate (see post #58). You will have to find some other premise for your argument that the NO formula is invalid.

Maria:

I don’t think that because a definitive judgment is yet to be made, then both the positive and negative are true. Do you agree?

Here is what #58 said:

Surely he wasn’t saying that the words of consecration in the Eastern rites are invalid because they don’t follow the exact formula of the Roman Rite.

I think it is difficult to argue that the Roman Rite can possibly not follow the exact formula for the Roman Rite and be valid. You really should read De Defectibus, which was found in the front of all altar missals up until the Vatican II “reforms”.

“The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: 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. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely.”

You were making the argument that the Eastern rites do not follow the form for the Roman Rite.

Gorman

 

[MTD]

I don’t think that because a definitive judgment is yet to be made, then both the positive and negative are true. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. But until a definitive judgment is made we must trust the decisions of the pope. As a sedevacantist, you do not believe the popes since Pius XII were/are valid; as a non-sedevacantist, I believe they were/are. So until we can agree on which popes were valid, I don’t think we can agree on whether the NO formula is valid.

You were making the argument that the Eastern rites do not follow the form for the Roman Rite.

Yes. The reason? To prove that St. Pius V’s words could not be taken in an absolute sense. Once that is understood, it is correctly deduced that he was talking about the Tridentine Rite. Now since the NO is not the Tridentine, how can his words be said to apply to it? Because it is a Roman Rite? But St. Pius V declared the Tridentine Rite to be the Roman Rite “in perpetuity,” so the NO cannot be called the Roman Rite. But if that’s the case, then St. Pius X’s revision cannot be called the Roman Rite either since it too is not the same as the rite St. Pius V promulgated “in perpetuity.”

So basically, I’ve come to this conclusion. St. Pius V’s words about the formula of consecration apply to the Tridentine Rite. Since St. Pius X did not change the formula of consecration in his revision, the words of St. Pius V could still apply to the revised rite. However, since the formula of consecration in the NO was changed from that of the Tridentine, St. Pius V’s words cannot be used effectively with it. So we have other documents, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, to prohibit the priest from changing the formula of consecration.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Yes. The reason? To prove that St. Pius V’s words could not be taken in an absolute sense. Once that is understood, it is correctly deduced that he was talking about the Tridentine Rite.

I don’t follow you here. Didn’t we already know he was referring to the Latin Rite?

Now since the NO is not the Tridentine, how can his words be said to apply to it? Because it is a Roman Rite? But St. Pius V declared the Tridentine Rite to be the Roman Rite “in perpetuity,” so the NO cannot be called the Roman Rite. But if that’s the case, then St. Pius X’s revision cannot be called the Roman Rite either since it too is not the same as the rite St. Pius V promulgated “in perpetuity.”

The Latin Rite was the Tridentine rite, then the Pius X, Pius XII…and so on. Is the “Pauline Rite” not the Latin Rite?

Explain.

So basically, I’ve come to this conclusion. St. Pius V’s words about the formula of consecration apply to the Tridentine Rite. Since St. Pius X did not change the formula of consecration in his revision, the words of St. Pius V could still apply to the revised rite. However, since the formula of consecration in the NO was changed from that of the Tridentine, St. Pius V’s words cannot be used effectively with it. So we have other documents, such as Redemptionis Sacramentum, to prohibit the priest from changing the formula of consecration.

This seems very convoluted to me…so the words of consecration are entirely determined by the Pope?

Do you think the Novus Ordo is a new Rite…for the Latin Church?

 

[MTD]

I don’t follow you here. Didn’t we already know he was referring to the Latin Rite?

Not necessarily. The implication was that a formula for consecration was not valid unless it was the formula outlined by St. Pius V. It was implied that St. Pius V’s De Defectibus was the definitive word on the form of consecration. At least that was the impression I received from yours and TNT’s posts. I’m sorry if that impression was incorrect.

The Latin Rite was the Tridentine rite, then the Pius X, Pius XII…and so on. Is the “Pauline Rite” not the Latin Rite?

Explain.

First of all, Latin Rite is not really the proper term. There were/are several valid Latin rites existing simultaneously; for example, I’ve been to three in my short lifetime: Dominican, Pauline, and 1962 Roman (John XXIII revision of the Tridentine). The proper term is Roman Rite because here we’re talking about, not the only, but the normative rite for the Latin Church.

So yes, the Pauline Rite is a Latin rite as well as the normative Roman Rite.

This seems very convoluted to me

I’m sorry it seems so convoluted to you; hopefully that doesn’t mean it’s also illogical.

…so the words of consecration are entirely determined by the Pope?

No, Gorman, I did not say that. Take a look at the first paragraph in my last post.

Do you think the Novus Ordo is a new Rite…for the Latin Church?

Yes, I believe it is the new normative Roman Rite for the Latin Church for the same reason you believe the Pius X and Pius XII revisions of the Tridentine were the new Roman Rites at the time they were promulgated: belief in the validity of the popes who promulgated them.

Maria