Validity of None-Tridentine Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahakista
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexV said:
I’ve seen raisins in communion bread. I guess when I had doubts about the validity of the Sacrament, the devil was planting them.
Click to expand...
You’ve got to be kidding. You saw raisins? :eek:
 
That’s right. If you didn’t see it, it never happened. Or it really wasn’t communion bread…it was in a basket the priest uttered the (fruitless) words of institution over, but it wasn’t really communion bread. Or the bishop secretly told Father it was okay, and the pope knew, and so it’s fine.
 
AlexV said:
That’s right. If you didn’t see it, it never happened. Or it really wasn’t communion bread…it was in a basket the priest uttered the (fruitless) words of institution over, but it wasn’t really communion bread. Or the bishop secretly told Father it was okay, and the pope knew, and so it’s fine.
Click to expand...
Why the sarcasm? Term - communion bread? What’s that?
 
It’s the term YOU used. Sarcasm has a long history and tradition in the Church, by the way.

At that Raisin Mass, there was no Eucharist.
 
AlexV said:
It’s the term YOU used. Sarcasm has a long history and tradition in the Church, by the way.

At that Raisin Mass, there was no Eucharist.
Click to expand...
See YOUR term in YOUR post # 19. Isn’t it a mormon term? Patron Saint of sarcasm - who?
 
AlexV said:
…it was in a basket the priest uttered the (fruitless) words of institution over, but it wasn’t really communion bread…
Click to expand...
The words may have been fruitless, but the bread wasn’t 🙂

Happy to report I’ve never heard of anything like this in the UK. I really can’t see the raisin for adding fruit to communion bread.
 
“Communion bread”, as you WELL know, is a perfectly fine term to use for the bread that is intended for consecration. It’s called as such on many packages of hosts sold by church supply houses.

You’re obfuscating the point. The POINT of the discussion was the devil sowing doubts.

My point stands. My doubt of the validity of the Raisin Eucharist was not Satanic.
 
AlexV said:
“Communion bread”, as you WELL know, is a perfectly fine term to use for the bread that is intended for consecration. It’s called as such on many packages of hosts sold by church supply houses.

You’re obfuscating the point. The POINT of the discussion was the devil sowing doubts.

My point stands. My doubt of the validity of the Raisin Eucharist was not Satanic.
Click to expand...
Then why did YOU accuse me of using the term? (Use of the term Raisin E— might be satanic.)
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
I wanted to reiterate what GeraldP said.

Without a doubt, some Novus Ordo Mass have been invalid. There have been at least two diocese in the US that used invalid matter for years. The Diocese of Cincinnati OH was one; and, as Gerald said, Father Corapi mentioned another one on the east coast (although he didn’t tell which one). If I am not mistaken, one of these diocese used invalid matter FOR 10 YEARS.

All that time, the only Catholics in those diocese who went to a valid Mass were the Traditionalists, such as the SSPX, who were out of normal relations with Rome; and anyone who attended Eucharistic adoration was adoring bread and nothing more.

I’ll never forget listening to Mother Angelica when someone called in and said “Mother, last Sunday Father consecrated a Cake at Mass. Was that calid”? Mother Angelica, withi complete disgust in her voice, said: Honey, you got nothin".

For those who don’t know, the “matter” of the eucharist is the bread. It has to be actual bread. Only bread can be transubstantiated into the body of Christ. Thus, if anything is added to the “recipe”, it bcomes something other than bread and the change does not take place. Thus you have an invalid Mass; or NO Mass (pun intended).

I wonder how many diocese in the U.S today are using invalid matter today? After all, it took 10 years before it was discovered in one diocese. This is what happens when you have wolves in sheeps clothing running the Church.

This reminds me of a quote from St. John Eudes. He says that the greatest punishment God can inflict on his people is giving them corrupt leaders and Priest. He also said that this is a sure sign that God was extremely angry with His people.

We deserve the punishment we have received. Fortunately, God has provided a few safe havens during this crisis. But if you attend Mass at one of the “safe havens”, you will have to suffer ridicule and name calling - but it’s worth it.
Click to expand...
This stuff just blows my mind.

What do you people get in the way of satisfaction by all of this?

The SSPX supporters twist words around to make their case that they are right and the church is wrong. They may convince themselves but who cares? Rome has the final say.

Now y’all are going to great lengths to try and cobble up some idea that the NO mass is wrong, or that all those people who received communion from a particular church for ten years did so invalidly, and so forth.

What do you get out of all of this? Does it really turn you on THAT much, to manipulate words and deeds to somehow make YOU right and the church or its people wrong?

Do you really think you should be proud of yourselves or something? What could you possibly get out of declaring that everyone that received communion from a given church did so without meaning? What about those who died while this practice was taking place? Are they in Hell because you say they received invalid communion?

Or is this just another exercise to criticise the NO mass, or the church, or to support the SSPX?
 
What’s truly disturbing is there are some Catholics out there who will twist themselves into a pretzel to defend invalid “Masses”, or indulge in sophistry to explain how they really weren’t invalid, but who will attack the SSPX as Satanic.
 
Ahakista said:
I have questions concerning the validity of non-Latin masses, as I recently had a close friend who passed away. He did not believe in the validity of the current mass, instead insisting that the Tridentine Mass was the only valid mass or the pre-Vatican II mass was the only valid mass. I am looking for answers on this issue. Please post your thoughts.

Ahakista
Click to expand...
While there have been particular situations in which masses were rendered invalid due to the actions of the individual priest, it is a mistake to say that all masses are now invalid except the traditional Latin Mass. The controversy surrounding the words of consecration has already been brought up in this thread. Here is an article that might help explain how the new consecration, even the English version, is still valid:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#IV.%20Is%20“For%20All”%20an%20invalid%20translation%20of%20“Pro%20Vobis%20et%20Pro%20Multis”?
 
I don’t understand the reasons for the unwillingness to face the truth about liturgical abuses that render the mass invalid.

One of the defense mechanisms is to avoid specifics at all costs.

It’s a dishonest tactic that accuses people who expose the abuse are “against the Church” when they actually agree with Rome that the Eucharist is not valid when someone uses honey, raisins, rice cakes, sugar, milk, eggs or anything other than wheat and water.

It’s the enablers who deny that parish priests and bishops sabotage the mass, or even make a hash of it because they are confused that are really against the Church and disloyal to the Holy Father.
 
michelle_p said:
This stuff just blows my mind.

What do you people get in the way of satisfaction by all of this?

The SSPX supporters twist words around to make their case that they are right and the church is wrong. They may convince themselves but who cares? Rome has the final say.

Now y’all are going to great lengths to try and cobble up some idea that the NO mass is wrong, or that all those people who received communion from a particular church for ten years did so invalidly, and so forth.

What do you get out of all of this? Does it really turn you on THAT much, to manipulate words and deeds to somehow make YOU right and the church or its people wrong?

Do you really think you should be proud of yourselves or something? What could you possibly get out of declaring that everyone that received communion from a given church did so without meaning? What about those who died while this practice was taking place? Are they in Hell because you say they received invalid communion?

Or is this just another exercise to criticise the NO mass, or the church, or to support the SSPX?
Click to expand...
That’s quite a rant.

From Rome in 2004:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

From the preamble:
[4.] “Certainly the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council has greatly contributed to a more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful.”[10] Even so, “shadows are not lacking”.[11] In this regard it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.
Click to expand...
On the matter of the Eucharist:
Chapter III
Click to expand...
THE PROPER CELEBRATION OF MASS
Click to expand...
  1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist
Click to expand...
[48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.[123] It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.[124]** It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist.** Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.[125]
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
Then you admit that Satan is running rampant within the Church? Maybe that’s what Pope Paul was talking about.
Click to expand...
Please save your silly questions for one of your own mentality. BTW, you have now misquoted Pope Paul VI. I’m not surpised though. Your disrespect regarding matters of the Church and our faith is highly unusual. I guess you know that. Check your next post to michelle p: ---- Who’s holding it up? Angel Gabriel? — Is that an attempt at humor? Very sad instead.
 
AlexV said:
What’s truly disturbing is there are some Catholics out there who will twist themselves into a pretzel to defend invalid “Masses”, or indulge in sophistry to explain how they really weren’t invalid, but who will attack the SSPX as Satanic.
Click to expand...
I feel like I’m supposed to read between the lines, so here’s my attempt… So do you mean to say that, with the exception of two traditional Latin Masses, I’ve been attending invalid “Masses” all my life? As far as I’m aware, in at least a vast majority of the Masses I’ve attended, the form and matter were present, there were no liturgical abuses, nothing “wrong” per se - (except for the argument by some that it isn’t the TLM).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top