Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


He said what?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

He said what?

Post  tornpage on Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:44 pm

I think someone (Rasha) might have posted this already somewhere, but it bears repeating:

http://catholicism.org/thank-you-holy-father-for-many-must-replace-for-all-in-the-consecration.html

"This mistranslation always troubled me for another reason, a most important one. Before the words of consecration are uttered by the priest, he says over the host: “And [Jesus] said . . .” This is how the account reads of the consecration of the wine in the Gospel of Saint Matthew: “Jesus . . . took the chalice, giving thanks, and gave to them saying: Drink this all of you . . .”

Do you see how grave is this mistranslation? In Persona Christi, the priest is saying that Jesus is saying something He did not say, namely, that this Blood of the “New Testament” is to be shed for “all.” I do not want to raise the issue of the universal sufficiency of Christ’s Blood to save all men, which all Catholics affirm. I do not even raise the contrasting issue of efficacious saving grace here, which benefits only the elect (“the many”), which so many brilliant theologians have done who objected to the mistranslation. Nor am I questioning the validity of the consecration with the vernacular Novus Ordo’s use of the term “all.” I accept its validity. I must accept it.

No! What I am highlighting here with these comments is very simple, and disturbing, perhaps more disturbing on account the New Mass’s validity. It is this: At the most solemn moment of the vernacular Mass, the priest, in the Name of Christ, is saying that Jesus said something that He did not say.

Thank you, Pope Benedict, for mandating this correction."

http://catholicism.org/thank-you-holy-father-for-many-must-replace-for-all-in-the-consecration.html
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: He said what?

Post  columba on Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:55 pm

That one word "All" highlights the arogance of this topsy turvy world where man knows better than God. The Mass is meant to be the perfect prayer so how be that such a gross imperfection was permitted to enter. It is an imperfection. If it weren't there'd be no need to rectify it. But what of the many other "minor" imperfections. Will they too be dealt with. Like e.g, returning to ad orientem?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum