Souls are in danger!

columba wrote:
In other words (in non-gobbledegook language), "We got it wrong."

There was no “gobbledegook”, just the truth. And yes, “we got it wrong”, which is why, at long last, it has been corrected.

But NEVER was there a doubt about the validity of the New Mass.

Here’s one for you, columba:

Our Lord allowed and predestined this. He wanted to see how many Catholics would remain faithful to His Church and to His Vicar.

He has the tally. There are no "fence-sitters".

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
In other words (in non-gobbledegook language), "We got it wrong."

There was no “gobbledegook”, just the truth. And yes, “we got it wrong”, which is why, at long last, it has been corrected.

But NEVER was there a doubt about the validity of the New Mass.

Here’s one for you, columba:

Our Lord allowed and predestined this. He wanted to see how many Catholics would remain faithful to His Church and to His Vicar.

He has the tally. There are no "fence-sitters".

Mike if it were a trivial matter that a proper translation was not rendered and hence had to be corrected 50+ yrs later, then all would be well but the fact that the holy sacrifice of the Mass was not worth the effort of ensuring precission in the first place is beyond sacrilegious.

Of course I agree that this was allowed by the permissive will of God but that doesn't excuse the perpetrators nor does it incriminate those who -discerning the diobolical liberty that had been taken- refused to attend it.

There indeed was a doubt in the minds of many theologians as to the validity and this doubt was sufficient (as per the guidelines of St Thomas) to render it sinful to partake of.

If the present reform deals with the validity doubt it still does not deal with the reverential issues. the unclear expresssion of the meaning of the Mass and the novus ordo's lack of inbuilt constraints to deter abuse.
It is the Mass and should be perfect in structure regardless of individual celebrants capacity to abuse it.

[quote="MRyan"][quote="GK"]


In fact, I noticed you didn’t respond to the following question:

In the Old Roman Rite, in the Offertory we read:

"OFFERIMUS TIBI, DOMINUS ... TOTIUS MUNDI SALUTE."

The priest is stating that the chalice is offered up for "our salvation and for the whole world".

Please explain, GT, how we are supposed to understand the sense of words, and who supplies the Catholic understanding of the same, when we know the efficacious application of Christ's blood is not for the whole world, but only for those who are worthy to receive it.

Is the Old Rite guilty of promoting the heresy of universal salvation?

The Canon of the mass was unchanged for over 1300 years. The Offertory prayers are relatively new and varied from place to place until they were standardized, I don't think one has to scrutinize these words as they would the form of the consecration, nor are they as remotely significant.

Thank you for the rest of your posts, i will be reviewing them more carefully and commenting in the next few days.

Our Lord allowed and predestined this. He wanted to see how many Catholics would remain faithful to His Church and to His Vicar.

I know quite a few sedes that would agree with you.

And here you are complaining about Anaphoras that do not say the same words said by our Lord (I guess St. Luke and St. Paul didn’t get the memo either since both of them omitted the subject words completely, and the latter received a direct revelation from our Lord on the words of consecration, as it was said by St. Paul at Mass, and, we may assume, by the churches he founded), when at least two of those Anaphoras contain “all”, while providing the additional words that provide the proper context, as in “all of the many” (a transliteration familiar to St. Paul and scripture) who will receive the benefit of the sacrament.

Let us be accurate. My complaint was about the ICEL translation that has Our Lord say -an affirmation (He said this) not merely a sort of negation (leaving out something He said) - something He didn't say. Neither St. Luke nor St. Paul said Our Lord said "for all." I believe St. Luke had Our Lord saying "for you," and St. Paul "Do this in remembrance of Me." All of which Christ did say. Is this so hard to follow?

As to my "suspicion" - perhaps a poor word choice; not meant in the sense of "Miller's up to something devious," but in the sense of "I'm not buying Miller's use of this Anaphora as a justification" - let us also be clear. The only Anaphora that has, like the ICEL, simply "for all" without the qualification "of the elect" or "chosen" or some such - and the accurate use of "for you" in other Anaphora, which again the infallible Word tells us Christ also did say, denotes the apostles at the Supper and speaks to the faithful at the Mass, not everyone or "all" - is this one Marionite Anaphora, which Miller himself tells us:

In this ancient Sacred Liturgy there were traditionally 22 Anaphoras. Of these twenty-two Anaphoras, some being perhaps the most ancient in the history of the Church, there are just six still in general use among Maronites at this time. In one of these, the Consecration of the wine did not say "for many." It said "shed for you and for all." For over 300 years this Maronite Anaphora used the Syriac (or Aramaic) translation of the Old Latin text; and in the consecration of the wine in that translation they used the words “for all.” This fact is confirmed by two sources. "The translation of the old Latin texts said: 'For All.' The original Syriac texts from our liturgy [was] translated 'For Many.' In our recently updated translation, more faithful to the original Syriac, we now have: 'For you and for many.'-Chorbishop Hector Doueihi, Eparchial Liturgist, Brooklyn, NY "[M]y old Maronite liturgical books indeed do say in the Consecration 'For All.' In our recent versions, this has been changed to 'For you and for many.' Your point is interesting and well-taken."-Father Richard Saad, St. Elias Maronite Church, Birmingham, AL (from a private correspondence with an associate of the author) The Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon (which itself was a Syriac translation of the Latin) reads as follows: "This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin." This translation was used legitimately and validly and appropriately, without censure from Rome, but with approval.

So in the long almost 2,000 year history of the Church we have a period of about 300 years where one Anaphora of many active and available variations (which used "for many") in one rite of the Church used the "for you and for all" of the ICEL committee. As to Rome's "approval" - did Rome even get around to addressing it, this obscure Anaphora (one of many available in the Rite) "used" (let us say available for use, we don't know is the others were mainly used) for a 300 year period sometime?

And it is likely that this past "use" was not even in the minds of the ICEL translators - we'd have heard, don't you think? - who would then have for the first time in the history of the Church (for all they knew) had "for you and for all" together in the consecration of the Precious Blood. The obscurity of the Anaphora and the absence of its use as a justification (before Miller) suggest this is the case.

And that is the point of my "suspicion" of Miller's argument using the Anaphora. It does nothing to address the questions of motivation brought to mind by the what would be astounding and totally unprecedented change (if they weren't, as is likely, aware of this Marionite Anaphora) in the consecration by the English speaking translators of the ICEL.

I have not made the issue validity here. I am aware that others have, but I haven't. To me it is a factor to be weighed in one's conscience as one grapples - or grappled - in the English speaking world with the "new theology" of the Mass (Ottaviani Intervention) wrought in the Novus Ordo, which was exacerbated by the ICEL translation.

tornpage wrote:
Let us be accurate. My complaint was about the ICEL translation that has Our Lord say -an affirmation (He said this) not merely a sort of negation (leaving out something He said) - something He didn't say. Neither St. Luke nor St. Paul said Our Lord said "for all." I believe St. Luke had Our Lord saying "for you," and St. Paul "Do this in remembrance of Me." All of which Christ did say. Is this so hard to follow?

Yes it is hard to follow; for the entire thrust of your argument is that the original English Novus Ordo had our Lord saying words (“for all”) that He did not say (He said “for many”), never mind the fact that only two (Matthew and Mark) of the four Scripture narratives include the words “for many”, never mind the fact that “No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used”, and never mind the fact that “all” is often used in Scripture to mean “all of the many”.

And, if your complaint is that the original English Novus Ordo had our Lord saying words He allegedly did not say, why are you perfectly fine with the Church adding words to the consecration formula that are not found in any of the four Scripture narratives? Why are you fine, in other words, with the form of the traditional Roman Rite having our Lord say the phrase "Mysterium fidei", when, if we follow your line of argumentation, this traditional form has “Our Lord say -an affirmation (He said this) … - something He didn't say”?

So, we are to understand, adding a phrase (that He did not say) to our Lord’s words of Consecration is fine, but it is gross malfeasance for the Church to approve a change from “for many” to “for all” when we know “all” and “many” were often interchanged in Scripture? For example in Mark 10:45 we find: "For the Son of Man also is not come to be ministered unto; but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many." And in 1 Timothy 2:6 we find: "For there is one God; and one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a redemption for all."

Apparently, the Church believes it had the authority to add "Mysterium fidei" to the words of our Lord because it brought out the rich theological significance of this Mystery, just as the Church believes it had the authority to change “for many” to “for all” and to change “will be shed … for the forgiveness of sins” to “so that sins may be forgiven” in order to more fully emphasize both the sufficiency and the fruit of our Lord’s words, and to confirm the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 3:

although Christ died for all men, all men do not receive the benefit of His death, but only those to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated.

Of course, I seem to remember you having a problem with this as well, and I can’t help but wonder if the two are directly related.

And, while we know, as the Catechism of Trent teaches, why in the traditional form of the Roman Rite the words “for all” are not used (because “for many” refers directly to the fruit or benefit alone, rather than to the sufficiency of the Passion), this does not mean that the new form does not still refer to the fruit of the Passion, it does. Also lost in all this is the fact that the traditional form also refers to the sufficiency of the Passion in the words “for you”, and the infallible fact that it is “the Sovereign Pontiff alone”, while not changing or touching upon the substance of the form, to exercise his divine prerogative “to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical "Mediator Dei")

St. Matthew’s Gospel has: “this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Of the four Scripture formulas, this is the only one that includes “for the forgiveness of sins”, and we know that not all men will have their sins forgiven, but only many (of the all). But, did our Lord shed His blood on behalf of all men so that all men will have the possibility of forgiveness? Of course, and this is a dogma of faith.

Again, in the traditional form “and for many” speaks directly to the benefit/fruits of the Passion, while “for you” speaks to the sufficiency of the Passion (for the salvation of all men), which is why “shall be shed for you …” includes not only Judas (who is present when these words were spoken), but “all men”.

In other words, in the traditional Roman form: “For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you [for all men] and for many [the elect] unto the remission of sins.”

The original English form says, in its substance, the same thing, but changes “which shall be shed for you [for all men] and for many [the elect] unto the remission of sins” to “…it will be shed for you and for all men so that sins [of many] may be forgiven".

In other words, as “thomist” explained: “Notice this [so that sins may be forgiven] is mentioned as a possibility, while the Latin Rite has it in the indicative mood: which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. The possibility of forgiveness of sins for all implies the actual forgiveness for many.”

Yes, it does.

tornpage wrote:
So in the long almost 2,000 year history of the Church we have a period of about 300 years where one Anaphora of many active and available variations (which used "for many") in one rite of the Church used the "for you and for all" of the ICEL committee. As to Rome's "approval" - did Rome even get around to addressing it, this obscure Anaphora (one of many available in the Rite) "used" (let us say available for use, we don't know is the others were mainly used) for a 300 year period sometime?

Tornpage, the fact of the matter is that for almost 2000 years there have been at least 89 variations on the forms of consecration, with great disparity in the actual words that were used; without, of course, the substance being changed. While you are fixated on one “obscure” form that used “for all”, you brush off the other two ancient forms that used “to all” and “for all” because, you say, at least “all” was qualified with additional words to mean the faithful. But that is precisely the point, when “all” is used, when "for many" is used without "for you"; when “for you” is used without “for many”; and when neither “for you” nor “for many” is used, the essential signification of each of these forms is not changed, and it is the Church that supplies the essential meaning and substance for each form.

Again:

The Mass of St. Hippolytus, which dates from the 3rd century, does not use the phrase for many, but "This is my body, which is broken for you", and "This is my Blood which is shed for you". The following recognized Oriental Liturgies do not include "for many" in the consecration of the chalice: Catholic Ethiopian Rite, "Take, drink, this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins." (From King, Archdale A., Rites of Eastern Christendom, Catholic Book Agency, Rome, 1947. Vol. 1, pp. 641-642). The same goes with the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites. Although most Eastern rites do presently use the phrase 'for many', in the ancient Eucharistic prayers many did not use that phrase. All of these Eucharistic prayers have been recognized by the Catholic Church.

The Anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) of the Lord Jesus Christ: (from a 7th century book published by the Holy See):

"And as often as ye do this, make memorial of Me. And likewise also the cup, putting wine into it, giving thanks, blessing (three signings of the cross) and sanctifying, Thou gavest unto them. Truly, This is Thy Blood which was shed for our sins."

Columba calls it “sacrilege” when “a proper translation was not rendered” in a different form of the Roman Rite (which can also be said of many non-Roman forms). Of course, the fact that the change in words was proper to "unto the remission of sins" being changed from the indicative mood to "so that sins may be forgiven", went right over his head. More "sacrilege", I'm sure.

Will the real theologian on sacramental theology and the real authority on the Pope’s supreme authority over the sacred Liturgy please stand up?

Columba calls it “sacrilege” when “a proper translation was not rendered” in a different form of the Roman Rite (which can also be said of many non-Roman forms). Of course, the fact that the change in words was proper to "unto the remission of sins" being changed from the indicative mood to "so that sins may be forgiven", went right over his head. More "sacrilege", I'm sure.

Will the real theologian on sacramental theology and the real authority on the Pope’s supreme authority over the sacred Liturgy please stand up?

If there were nothing wrong with the form there would be no need to upset the whole english-speaking church again by correcting it.

Re the "Mysterium fidei." Tradition has it that this was received before the death of the last apostle (to St Peter to be precise) and therefore is part of the deposit of faith and not just something invented by the Church.

Mike you're digging the hole deeper and deeper.

tornpage wrote:
I have not made the issue validity here. I am aware that others have, but I haven't. To me it is a factor to be weighed in one's conscience as one grapples - or grappled - in the English speaking world with the "new theology" of the Mass (Ottaviani Intervention) wrought in the Novus Ordo, which was exacerbated by the ICEL translation.

Understood.

But let us not forget:

few of those ... who circulate the “Ottaviani Intervention”, publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said:

“The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.” (In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970) (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

I think it is safe to say that with many rad-trads and schismatic sede's, "a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing" is out of the question; for them, the "infiltration of errors" is a given and "the purity of faith" has NOT been "upheld by the Supreme Magisterium".

Hey Tornpage, can "the Cardinal was 'blind-as-a-bat' [and senile?] and didn't know what he was signing" story be far behind?

Golly, maybe the "imposter" and "body-double" for Sr. Lucia dictated these words to the "blind" Cardinal who in-turn submitted these documents to the "imposter" and "body-double" for Pope Paul VI.

I understand the real "true pope" (Cardinal Siri) was not amused.

Did Cardinal Ottaviani invisage at the time the complete vernacularisation of the NO
with all its mutalzations to the point were they could not accurately translate the words of consecration correctly?

I don't think he'd be amused.

columba wrote:

Columba calls it “sacrilege” when “a proper translation was not rendered” in a different form of the Roman Rite (which can also be said of many non-Roman forms). Of course, the fact that the change in words was proper to "unto the remission of sins" being changed from the indicative mood to "so that sins may be forgiven", went right over his head. More "sacrilege", I'm sure.

Will the real theologian on sacramental theology and the real authority on the Pope’s supreme authority over the sacred Liturgy please stand up?

If there were nothing wrong with the form there would be no need to upset the whole english-speaking church again by correcting it.

I wasn't aware that "whole english-speaking church" was "upset" by the correction.

In the Novus Ordo Church I usually attend, from the Bishop on down, there was not a peep of uttered displeasure.

Are you referring to the modernist cry-babies who don't listen to the Pope anyway?

Who cares?

Re the "Mysterium fidei." Tradition has it that this was received before the death of the last apostle (to St Peter to be precise) and therefore is part of the deposit of faith and not just something invented by the Church.

No one said it was "invented" by the Church, and no one suggested something so ludicrous. Why don't you read my post again, slowly this time, and you'll see that I made no such suggestion.

The authority of the Church to include these words in the from of the traditional Roman Rite is all the "tradition" we need to know.

Btw, if your "tradition" had any real weight, then the Catholic Eastern Rites would have included the "Mysterium fidei" in their forms, when in fact, very few have.

Mike you're digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Actually, the light of Faith gets a little brighter every day.

I can think of nothing more detrimental to the soul and to the Faith than the pope-less quagmire you flirt with every day; all the while calling it "fence-sitting".

You do know what our Lord said about the "middle-of-the-roaders", right?

In the U.S., critters who walk such a hazardous line end up as "road kill".

columba wrote:Did Cardinal Ottaviani invisage at the time the complete vernacularisation of the NO with all its mutalzations to the point were they could not accurately translate the words of consecration correctly?

He clearly did not envisage persons such as yourself accusing the Supreme Pontiff of "sacrilege" for approving the English translation to the Novus Ordo.

He would not have been amused in the least, and would have been appalled at your accusations against the Supreme Pontiff.

MRyan said:

"I wish people would stop telling me how my time would better be served"

Could not have been talking about me. I course it was me and I will say it again. I was saying this to all of us including me. I guess this ongoing discussion of Many/All just hit a serious nerve; like thats not happened to any of you. Let me 'splain.

Mike has had one of the greatest impacts on me and my Catholic life that I could ever imagine. I use much of his information and guidance in my daily discussions; just today for example with Father and a co worker at the Hospital. Much has been given to him so much is expected. His patience is over the top and in my opinion there comes a time for closure. In reading many of the older posts we do re visit the same subjects and repeat ourselves often (myself included.) At some point for those that believe one way or another no explanation is necessary, for others no explanation will ever suffice. At some point prayer alone must replace words. That is the way I see it for the Many/All discussion.

We all recognize the Crisis in Church. I am very embarrassed to share with you that almost all my life I would get excited to see a hurricane go from a Cat 1 to a Cat 4 or even the exciting big Cat 5 monster or a snow storm turn to a blizzard. I finally had a come to Jesus moment and that changed my perspective which had a great impact in my life in many other ways. I mean rooting for death , destruction and injury and misery is just plain sick. Now I pray for calm seas and gentle rain. So what does that have to do with ALL/Many in the Consecration. Well I will tell you.

I prayed for decades to restore the word Many to the Consecration. I have a Sacramentary in my library that has all the words crossed out in the translation from the Latin to the hastily and mistakenly put together Novus Ordo. You can feel the pain as you turn the pages as kneel fades into memory before our Lord and Savor into the dilution of our Faith. Oh so sad and we know the results. But rather then curse the darkness and light a candle of Joy we are not rejoicing in the moment. It is as if some are never thankful and appreciative unless they are complaining. I do not fully understand the binding and loosing powers of the Vicar of Christ but using All for Many might be a good example. This can be the worst of times and best of times for the Church(not like I do not borrow lines) or like Frank Sinatra sang the Best is yet to come.

If all of us can not be joyful for the faithful words of Jesus being restored, as Cardinal Arinze tells us in the twenty minute link below, then there is truly something wrong in our way of thinking. Maybe some would prefer a Cat 5 hurricane. He tells us that the translation was a mistake; what more do you want. Do you not realize that many{ of course not all} of our Saints sinned , fell out of grace and repented. The solution to problems can be remedied by some the very people who caused or contributed to the pain. Not to pray for and be submissive to the Pope and the likes of Cardinal Arinze, Father Michael Rodriquez and many many many others (certainly no where near all or nowhere near enough courageous clergy) is not being a true Catholic.

The word Many has been restored. You will not see the The word ALL again in our lifetimes. This issue is DONE
Enough already ..... Move On.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP5phNWomys


http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdSpXVShPzi8A3SlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMGpwYzFxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGUjVfNzU-/SIG=120as7aro/EXP=1328072151/**http%3a//www.youtube.com/watch%3fv=KWByiwHE4MY

MRyan wrote:

Columba wrote:
Re the "Mysterium fidei." Tradition has it that this was received before the death of the last apostle (to St Peter to be precise) and therefore is part of the deposit of faith and not just something invented by the Church.

No one said it was "invented" by the Church, and no one suggested something so ludicrous. Why don't you read my post again, slowly this time, and you'll see that I made no such suggestion.

The authority of the Church to include these words in the from of the traditional Roman Rite is all the "tradition" we need to know.

Btw, if your "tradition" had any real weight, then the Catholic Eastern Rites would have included the "Mysterium fidei" in their forms, when in fact, very few have.

The point was Mike; You were using the inclussion of the "Mysterium fidei" to add weight to your argument that the actual words that Christ uttered can be added to when according to Tradition "Mysterium fidei" was actually added by Christ Himself.

I can think of nothing more detrimental to the soul and to the Faith than the pope-less quagmire you flirt with every day; all the while calling it "fence-sitting".

It was Simple Faith who first termed it "Fence Sitting" but I call it "caution."
There are indeed many things more detrimental to the soul than exercising prudence in a time of crisis. Follow the leader is fine when the leader is following his leader. There's enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that the leader may not be the true leader but (for me at least) thus far, that hundred percent proof (which I require) is absent. In a lesser matter the current evidence would suffice. Til then, I'll proceed with caution.

You do know what our Lord said about the "middle-of-the-roaders", right?

In the U.S., critters who walk such a hazardous line end up as "road kill".

Yep, He was referring to the lukewarm. Nothing could assist my lukewarmness more so than acceptance of the current novelties in doctrine and liturgy.

The criiters on the wrong side of the road don't usually fair much better.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Did Cardinal Ottaviani invisage at the time the complete vernacularisation of the NO with all its mutalzations to the point were they could not accurately translate the words of consecration correctly?

He clearly did not envisage persons such as yourself accusing the Supreme Pontiff of "sacrilege" for approving the English translation to the Novus Ordo.

He would not have been amused in the least, and would have been appalled at your accusations against the Supreme Pontiff.

The "Supreme" Pontiff while to-and-froing between orthodoxy and man-pleasing had himself some very unkind words to say regardng the Novus Ordo Mass while he was cardinal. I merely agree with him in his moment of clarity.

I haven't accused the Supreme Pontiff of anything. I've placed a few quotes of his on the board from time to time and just let him speak for himself. It is of course considered very anti-catholic in these days to quote a pope as doing so usually reveals some phrase or other offensive to pius ears and then the poster gets the blame for putting such quotes up for discussion.

George I hear what your saying.
The reason I've joined the discussion on the "Many vs All" is because I'm not at "all" convinced that the change of a word has rectifed the problems with the NO.
Other numerous issues still remain unchecked and can still be a cause of loss of faith for "many."

Mike,

You have to remember I'm responding to posts you make which post the arguments of others, such as Miller with the Marionite Anaphora, the matt1618 arguments about St. Paul and "Do this in remembrance of me," etc. You then take issue with my response to those arguments by presenting another argument that I was not responding to: such as the addition to the Latin Rite of "mysterium fideii."

I think your argument as to "mysterium fideii" is an interesting one, addressed by columba in good part: the Tradition is that "addition" was given orally by Christ Himself to the Apostles.

In any event my criticism of the arguments of Miller and matt1618 still seem to me to be valid criticisms against the arguments of Miller and matt1618 that you presented.

Your point regarding "mysterium fidei" is well taken.

Mike,

As to Ottaviani, I am aware of his subsequent comments, and understand his relief and joy to hear the pope effectively respond to his criticisms. However, while the General Instruction was altered, the rite of the Novus Ordo Mass itself - which, with the original General Instruction, prompted Ottaviani's original criticism - remained the same and unchanged. I think I posted this somewhere here already - the search feature on this site really stinks, and we can't even pull up a list of our posts - but here goes again, from the Rev. Dr. Alcuin Reid's (a a liturgical scholar and cleric of the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France) review of Father Cekada's book, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI:

However the meat of Cekada’s work is found not in his history, but in his theological analysis of the Mass of Paul VI.

Two chapters are devoted to an analysis of the different versions of the General Instruction of the Missal that appeared in 1969 and 1970. Cekada rightly points out that the 1969 text confidently outlined the prevailing theological principles that underpinned the reformed rite of Mass, which was published with it. Cekada demonstrates well (but with a bit too much rhetoric) that these principles leave traditional Catholic theology behind: “sacrifice” is replaced with “assembly”, “the Lord’s supper” moves in to displace “the Sacrifice of the Cross”, etc.

This provoked an unholy Roman row and the “Ottaviani Intervention”, which declared that the new Order of Mass “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated [at] the Council of Trent.” Note that Cardinal Ottaviani speaks about the rites, not the Instruction. As Cekada ably demonstrates, the theological principles so boldly outlined in the 1969 Instruction guided the decisions about what went, remained, or was invented for the rites of the Mass of Paul VI (just look the offertory).

This row led to the appearance of a revision of the General Instruction in 1970, with, as J.D. Crichton quipped, a more “Tridentine” phrase put beside each incriminated expression, in order to shore up its doctrinal integrity. However, as Cekada deftly observes, the prayers and rites of the 1969 Order of Mass are identical to those of 1970: a defective building is not rectified by scribbling a few changes on the blueprints. The Mass of Paul VI remains, in its Latin original (before any Episcopal Conference gets to mistranslate it), intentionally theologically different to what came before.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/07/book-review-work-of-human-hands.html

The old Cardinal was thrilled (and rightly so) at comments made by Paul VI about the Novus Ordo that addressed some of his concerns. Yet the Novus Ordo Mass remained the same both before and after the comments on the new rite in the Ottaviani Intervention. In the words of Rev. Dr. Alcuin Reid, a liturgical scholar inside the Church today, it remains "intentionally theologically different to what came before."

This is the rub for me and many (no pun intended). We don't want a new theology, and especially not of the Mass. If it were just a question of "want," you might say, "so what, it's not about what we want," and you'd be right. But it is the "old" theology that expresses the essence of our faith, and the essence of salvation. That faith includes the pope as head of the Church, but the pope is not of the essence of that faith. The essence of that faith is salvation through the application of the merits of the Precious Blood of Christ to the sinner (Council of Trent), an application some of us were taught (and/or believe) requires the sacraments or an explicit desire for the sacraments, an explicit faith in Christ and conscious participation and communion with His Passion and saving work on Calvary - in short, a Catholic faith and experience of it (at least by desire).

If it comes to the pope or the faith, the faith wins.

You don't see a conflict and a problem holding with the one and and maintaining the other. Wonderful. Indeed to you holding to the one is of the essence of the other. I don't see it that way. Just as the Church and the Catholic faith remain when the pope is dead and the chair empty, the Church and the Catholic faith remain even if there were a pope who did or said things inconsistent with that faith.

Perhaps the question is, are there some things the pope himself can't touch? Can the pope in the year 1969 A.D or 1970 A.D. construct a new rite of the Mass "intentionally theologically different to what came before." The issues of ecumenism, etc. are related and there's an interplay - but the issue is is there a "new theology," and this is crystallized for me in the way we pray, in the Mass. You and I both know this is the issue. So if the theology is not "new," yes, these are mere decisions in the realm of the prudential, what works for the times, something totally in the hands of the pope and the magisterium and under their direction. You have touched I believe on the doctrinal/pragmatic or practical with Jehanne elsewhere here recently. Yes, this is the issue. I think our discussions here are helpful and clarifying.

As a Catholic for whom the former different (referred to before as "old") theology was essential to salvation itself, a departure from that theology in the sacrifice of the Mass itself (which not only expressed that theology but was essential to its application in actually saving souls) is staggering. As columba has noted, the change to "for many" doesn't obviate or remedy the "intentional theological[] difference."

Again, are we seeing an "intentional theological difference" in the magisterium post-Vatican II, or just changes in the non-doctrinal realm, changes in the prudential world of relations between men and with men? The Novus Ordo and the change in the Mass brings this question into focus for I think obvious reasons.

And yes, George, this might be old news to some and an old battle for others, but for some of us who have been intuitively struggling with these things crystallization of the issues and a movement from "gut sense" to intellectual consciousness or intellectual grasp is just dawning, or the focus is becoming sharper - the sun is moving higher into the sky toward noon.

MRyan wrote:

Of course, as De Defectibus tells us:

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. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

First, a bit of contextual history provided by Salza:

De Defectibus … was incorporated into the Roman Missal promulgated by the decree Quo Primum on July 14, 1570. The document intended to address defects that occur during the celebration of the Holy Mass. […] However, it is obvious that we must harmonize De Defectibus’ apparent teaching on the necessity of the long form with the Catechism’s teaching on the sufficiency of the short form. If these texts cannot be harmonized, we would have to accuse a sainted pope of contradicting himself on a grave matter concerning the validity of the sacrament. After all, St. Pius V released the Catechism of Trent around November 1566, and De Defectibus only a little more than three years later, in 1570. Do we really want to accuse St. Pius V in 1570 of not knowing what he taught in 1566? I don’t think so.

The problem with this is that many theologians do not think that the Catechism of the Council of Trent says the short form is sufficient.

Fr. Francis J. Wengier, Ph.D., S.T.D. The Eucharistic Sacrifice (1955)

“It is not necessary to express that teleology in both consecrations. Our Latin formula omits the ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ in the consecration of the bread. It prefers to give to the teleology its formal place, namely, in the consecration of the wine, which being changed into Blood apparently separated (in the species only!) from the Body, formally signifies its death — death which subsequently our formula determines, adding the purpose of this death: ‘pro vobis... pro multis ... in remissionem peccatorum.’

“The transubstantiation, then, is not sufficient by itself for a Mass. It must be a sacrificial transubstantiation, expressing an oblation made to God for sins. This peculiar expression must be verbal (not only mental), because it is an integral part of the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and every sacrifice (in the strict sense) is an external act of worship, signifying the internal dedication.”

And here's another one. Mysterium Fidei (1931), Fr. Maurice de la Taille, S.J.:

“Amicus, S.J., is even more clear and explicit (De Sacram., disp. 24, n. 46): You will urge: at least the words for you, for many are not necessary, seeing that the sacrificial character is sufficiently declared by the words shall be shed. But we deny the consequence. For unless the end to which the blood-shedding is directed be expressed, THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER IS NOT EXPRESSED, SINCE THE BLOOD COULD BE SHED, AND STILL NOT BE SHED BY WAY OF SACRIFICE: IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WERE SHED NOT AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP ON THE PART OF ANYONE NOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY ONE”

MRyan wrote:
This brings us to the important “short vs. long form” debate, and to John Salza’s credit, he brings to the discussion an interesting perspective and some critical distinctions that shed some light on this important question.

Some may be surprised to learn, for example, that not only did the Catechism of the Council of Trent make “a distinction between the essential and non-essential words in the form”, it also tells us what the essential words are (thus validating the sufficiency of the “short form” thesis).

According to whose interpretation of the catechism?

MRyan wrote:Not only that, but, and “Most importantly, the Council of Trent directs the Church to use “the form which shall be prescribed for each of the sacraments by the holy Council in the catechism” (Session 24, 7. De Reformatione). In other words, the Council tells us to look to the Catechism of Trent, not De Defectibus, for the definitive guidance on what constitutes “the form…for each of the sacraments.”

De Defectibus, in other words:

“says the words ‘Hic est enim…in remissionem peccatorum’ (the long form) constitute “the words of consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament.’ The document also says that if anything in the form is missing or changed, and this changes the meaning of the words, the sacrament is invalid. The document does not expressly distinguish between essential and non-essential words within the form.

It follows, then:

… from the standpoint of the level of ecclesiastical authority, the Catechism of Trent is more authoritative than De Defectibus. If there were a contradiction between the two documents, a universal catechism takes precedence over disciplinary guidelines concerning the liturgy when addressing the same issue. While De Defectibus does touch upon matters of faith and morals, its primary purpose is to explicate discipline and not teach doctrine. Certainly, the document was not intended to settle the question on the form of consecration, or this debate would have been over more than four centuries ago.

Uh, maybe it was, and the contradiction exists only in this fellow's mind.

MRyan wrote:In closing, Salza goes on to say:

Second, it cannot be established with any certainty that there is a contradiction between the Trent Catechism and De Defectibus. When De Defectibus refers to the “wording required for the act of consecrating,” it does not tell us t words are “required.”ever, based on the precedent of the Catechism of Trent, the “required” form “consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord.” In other words, De Defectibus seems to be following the Catechism’s distinction between words in the form that are “required” (the short form) and words in the form that are not “required” (the remaining words in the long form). If not, then the Church contradicted her own Catechism three years after it was released, and not a single theologian of the time made an issue of it.

Or Salza misinterpreted the Catechism.

Here is a letter to John Duddy who writes that the catechism says the short form is sufficient from a well known traditional bishop.
http://www.cmri.org/02-duddy-response2.html

"I. In my library, I have an English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent from 1829 by Rev. J. Donovan, Professor of Maynooth College. I would like to quote the pertinent text at length

“The form of the consecration of the wine, the other element of this Sacrament, is for the reasons assigned with regard to the bread, necessary to be accurately known, and clearly understood by the priest It is firmly to be believed that the form of consecrating the chalice is comprehended in these words: ‘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 to the remission of sins.’

“The words ‘this is the chalice’ are taken from St. Luke, and are also mentioned by the Apostle. The words that immediately follow, ‘of My Blood, or My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you, and for many to the remission of sins,’ are taken in part from St. Luke, and in part from St. Matthew.

“The form to be used in the consecration of this element, should, confessedly, consist of words signifying that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of Our Lord: this the words already cited clearly declare; and therefore, they alone exclusively constitute the form.

“They also express certain admirable fruits produced by the Blood of Christ, which was shed on Calvary, fruits which belong in a special manner to this Sacrament.”

Consider the first sentence:

“The form of the consecration of the wine, the other element of this Sacrament, is, for the reasons assigned with regard to the bread, necessary to be accurately known, and clearly understood by the priest.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly exhorted priests “to accurately know, and clearly understand the form.” For this reason the very next sentence used the word “comprehended.”

“It is firmly to be believed that the form of consecrating the chalice is comprehended in these words: ‘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 TO THE REMISSION OF SINS.’”

The word comprehend is defined in philosophy as “a grasp with the mind.” This word perfectly expressed what the previous sentence exhorted priests to do — to accurately know and clearly understand the form of consecration.

Furthermore, you need to consider the one sentence which you have overlooked in your translation of the Catechism. It is the sentence which follows the quote below:

“The form to be used in the consecration of this element, should, confessedly, consist of words signifying that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of Our Lord: this the words already cited clearly declare; and therefore, they alone exclusively constitute the form.”

The particular sentence you overlooked is the very next sentence after the above quote:

“They also express certain admirable fruits produced by the Blood of Christ.”

“Exprimunt autem praeterea quosdam effusi sanguinis in passione Domini admirabiles fructus...”

The two key words are “they” and “also.”

The word “they" refers to the sentence immediately preceding it. “They" refers to "the words to be used in the form”; “the words already cited”; “they alone exclusively constitute the form.”

The word “also” clearly states that the words used in the form of the consecration express the “certain admirable fruits.” Now the short form (This is My Blood) of itself does not convey the "certain admirable fruits." This sentence completely undermines your short form opinion.

This is further strengthened by the text of the Tridentine Catechism which identifies the particular words which express the fruit of the Passion:

“With great propriety therefore were the words for all omitted, because here the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. This the words of the Apostle declare, when he says, that Christ was offered once to take away the sins of many.”

Clearly then the words “pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” express the is fruit of the Passion, and the short form (this is My Blood) by itself cannot be what is referred to in the text:

“They also express certain admirable fruits produced by the Blood of Christ.”

II. St. Pius V, by whose authority the Catechism of the Council of Trent was published, ordered Cardinal Cajetan to erase from his Commentary the short form opinion that you hold.

In the book The Holy Eucharist by St. Alphonsus Liguori, the Redemptorist priest who edited the English translation of this book has an interesting footnote:

“De Miss. Sacr. 1.2, c. 15. - Benedict XIV. Here observes that St. Thomas (P. 3, q. 18, a. 3) seems to favor the opinion of those who make the essential form of the consecration of the chalice consists in all the words that the priest pronounces as far as Haec quotiescumque, because the words that follow, Hic est nim calix sanguinis mei, are determinationes praedicati, that is to say, sanguinis Christi, and are consequently, belonging ad integritatem ejusdem locutionis, are de substantia formae. ST. PIUS V CAUSED THE CONTRARY OPINION TO BE ERASED FROM THE COMMENTARY OF CAJETAN.”

(For the sake of those not familiar with Latin, the above text declares that the words which follow “For this is the chalice of My Blood” are the determinations of the predicate and are of the substance of the form.)

If your opinion that the short form was endorsed by the Catechism of the Council of Trent (the publication which St. Pius V authorized) were true, then why would this same Pope cause this very opinion to be erased from Cajetan’s commentary?

III. The Roman Missal of St. Pius V has the De Defectibus decree which clearly states:

“Thus the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are the following: 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.”

Your reference to “the cart and the horse” and “the horse out of the barn” really does not answer why the De Defectibus decree had not been reconciled for over 400 years with what you claim the Catechism endorsed — your short form opinion.

The only real discrepancy is between De Defectibus decree in the Missal of St. Pius V your misunderstanding of the Latin text of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

IV. I am glad that you raised the issue of Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Pope Pius XII taught:

“...In the course of centuries the Church did not and could not substitute other sacraments in place of those instituted by Christ our Lord. The reason is that the seven sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, as the Council of Trent teaches, and the Church has no authority over the "substance of the sacraments," that is, over the elements that Christ our Lord Himself, according to the testimony of the sources of divine revelation, determined should be kept in the sacramental sign...”

And why is this significant? The Catechism of the Council of Trent gave “the testimony of the sources of divine revelation” from which the words of consecration of the wine came. The Catechism of the Council of Trent stated:

“The words ‘this is the chalice’ are taken from St. Luke and are also mentioned by the Apostle. The words that immediately follow, ‘of My blood, or My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins’ are taken in part from St. Luke and in part from St. Matthew.”"

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Columba wrote:
Re the "Mysterium fidei." Tradition has it that this was received before the death of the last apostle (to St Peter to be precise) and therefore is part of the deposit of faith and not just something invented by the Church.

No one said it was "invented" by the Church, and no one suggested something so ludicrous. Why don't you read my post again, slowly this time, and you'll see that I made no such suggestion.

The authority of the Church to include these words in the from of the traditional Roman Rite is all the "tradition" we need to know.

Btw, if your "tradition" had any real weight, then the Catholic Eastern Rites would have included the "Mysterium fidei" in their forms, when in fact, very few have.

The point was Mike; You were using the inclussion of the "Mysterium fidei" to add weight to your argument that the actual words that Christ uttered can be added to when according to Tradition "Mysterium fidei" was actually added by Christ Himself.

Not so; meaning, your mythical private revelation that has our Lord whispering into the ear of St. Peter that He wants "Mysterium fidei" added to the consecration formula makes for good drama, but it is not based on fact (known Tradition) or doctrine.

Btw, columba, did our Lord also reveal to St. Peter that he did not want "Mysterium fidei" added to the consecration of the Latin Rite until the 7th century, by Pope St. Gregory the Great? Didn’t St. Peter immediately incorporate this addition and pass this revelation on to the Church? Did someone not get the memo -- like St. Paul?

Without questioning for a second the revealed tradition for "Mysterium fidei", I’m afraid the truth is much more mundane, but it is at least rooted in fact. For the fact of the matter is that:

The history of the phrase begins with I Timothy 3:9 – “deacons ... holding ... the mystery of faith”. Since, already in the Third Century, it was the convention that the Deacon at Mass held the Chalice, it looks as though “Mystery of Faith” was considered to mean the Chalice of the Lord's Blood, and was consequently incorporated into the Roman Institution Narrative: 'For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant, the Mystery of Faith'. (http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2007/12/mystery-of-faith.html)

And, as one commentator on Fr. Z’s blog wrote:

Mysterium Fidei is the Chalice… The Liturgy's texts are sacred in themselves and independent of Scripture. The Liturgy is celebrated, with the express purpose of adoring the Trinity through Christ's Sacrifice, and of divinising the worshippers. The liturgical texts are in some cases older than the NT, and in some cases more authentic than surviving corresponding OT texts… The Liturgy, like a bee, draws its nectar from many sources, not just Holy Scripture, and uses biblical texts as it needs, often paraphrasing (such as the epistle for Bishop Confessors ''Ecce Sacerdos Magnus''), and does not have to answer to … the word-for-word versions of like-sounding texts found in Scripture.

In fact, it was Bugnini’s obsession with making liturgical texts conform literally to similar biblical texts that is anti-liturgical and anti-traditional.

Tell us, Columba, what happened to the form of consecration that was received by St. Paul by way of our Lord’s direct revelation?

Unforutantely, you missed my real argument concerning the inclusion of "Mysterium fidei", for it was not “to add weight to [my] argument that the actual words that Christ uttered can be added”, but that it is the Church and the Church alone (Peter) that determines and approves the forms for the various Rites, and that:

No formula of Words of Institution in any liturgy is claimed to be an exact reproduction of words that Jesus used, presumably in the Aramaic language, at his Last Supper. The formulas generally combine words from the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. They may even insert other words, such as the phrase "Mysterium fidei" which for many centuries was found within the Roman Rite Words of Institution

Let's hope you get the point.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I can think of nothing more detrimental to the soul and to the Faith than the pope-less quagmire you flirt with every day; all the while calling it "fence-sitting".

It was Simple Faith who first termed it "Fence Sitting" but I call it "caution."

A distinction without a difference. “Maybe we have a pope, maybe we don’t” is fence sitting.

Btw, columba, did our Lord also reveal to St. Peter that he did not want "Mysterium fidei" added to the consecration of the Latin Rite until the 7th century, by Pope St. Gregory the Great? Didn’t St. Peter immediately incorporate this addition and pass this revelation on to the Church? Did someone not get the memo -- like St. Paul?

Very good. This is why these discussions are good.

But . . . are you sure it was "added" in the 7th Century, and not just codified or set down or something, sort of like what Pius V did for the Latin Rite again in the 16th Century?

George Brenner wrote:MRyan said:

"I wish people would stop telling me how my time would better be served"

Could not have been talking about me. I course it was me and I will say it again. I was saying this to all of us including me. I guess this ongoing discussion of Many/All just hit a serious nerve; like thats not happened to any of you. Let me 'splain.

[SNIP]

George,

As always, you are too generous.

It’s the nature of the beast (forums) that some issues will not soon die or ever go away.

There’s a reason for that – and this issue is important. Even columba agrees. This is a matter of doctrine and discipline and not only of knowing the difference, but also knowing of the pope’s supreme authority over each and how the Holy Ghost protects the Church from instituting doubtful and invalid rites and sacraments.

Does that mean I am sanctioning the abuses the New Mass has opened itself to (and were soon realized), or the way it was implemented? No. Does this mean that I agree with the original liberal dissidents of the ICEL and the havoc they played with the New Rite? No. Does this mean that I do not recognize the seeming “fabricated” nature of the new Liturgy or that's its theology is not as pristine as the TLM? No.

But I am tired of hearing from so-called “traditionalists” that the theology of the New Mass is “Protestant”; it is not Protestant, it is CATHOLIC.

And yes, I realize that some minds will never be swayed, but I’m not so much interested in swaying the recalcitrant sede or rad-trad, for example, as I am in persuading those others who may be reading this forum who heretofore may have been unduly swayed by the so called “traditionalist” arguments and revisionism, but can now look at this issue in context, and with the eyes of Faith.

The logical fallacies, the exaggerations, the outright falsehoods and the failure to recognize critical distinctions will continue, but the truth must prevail.

No harm, no foul – nothing personal. Sorry for the sting behind my short rebuke; it’s a holdover reaction to a certain protagonist, and I know you are not in that camp. I’ve never doubted your intentions.

tornpage wrote:

Btw, columba, did our Lord also reveal to St. Peter that he did not want "Mysterium fidei" added to the consecration of the Latin Rite until the 7th century, by Pope St. Gregory the Great? Didn’t St. Peter immediately incorporate this addition and pass this revelation on to the Church? Did someone not get the memo -- like St. Paul?

Very good. This is why these discussions are good.

But . . . are you sure it was "added" in the 7th Century, and not just codified or set down or something, sort of like what Pius V did for the Latin Rite again in the 16th Century?

Good point, Tornpage; and I did not mean to imply that "Mysterium fidei" was an on-the-spot inclusion without there being an existing tradition for it. I am certain there was, but uniformity in the consecration formula among the varied and dispersed Churches did not come, I believe, for quite some time; and the varied forms of the East (the majority of which did not include "Mysterium fidei") demonstrate that their traditions were respected by the Church of Rome.

I suspect in the early centuries there was as much variety in the formulas of the Latin churches as there was in the East. In fact, there is evidence that the Scholastic theology governing substance, matter and form that we know so well today took considerable time to develop (though never was there any doubt about valid sacraments).

I think your analogy between the respective codifications from the Pontificates of St. Gregory and St. Pius V is spot on.

tornpage wrote:Mike,

As to Ottaviani, I am aware of his subsequent comments, and understand his relief and joy to hear the pope effectively respond to his criticisms. However, while the General Instruction was altered, the rite of the Novus Ordo Mass itself - which, with the original General Instruction, prompted Ottaviani's original criticism - remained the same and unchanged. I think I posted this somewhere here already - the search feature on this site really stinks, and we can't even pull up a list of our posts - but here goes again, from the Rev. Dr. Alcuin Reid's (a a liturgical scholar and cleric of the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France) review of Father Cekada's book, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI:

However the meat of Cekada’s work is found not in his history, but in his theological analysis of the Mass of Paul VI.

[...]

The old Cardinal was thrilled (and rightly so) at comments made by Paul VI about the Novus Ordo that addressed some of his concerns. Yet the Novus Ordo Mass remained the same both before and after the comments on the new rite in the Ottaviani Intervention. In the words of Rev. Dr. Alcuin Reid, a liturgical scholar inside the Church today, it remains "intentionally theologically different to what came before."

This is the rub for me and many (no pun intended). We don't want a new theology, and especially not of the Mass. If it were just a question of "want," you might say, "so what, it's not about what we want," and you'd be right. But it is the "old" theology that expresses the essence of our faith, and the essence of salvation. That faith includes the pope as head of the Church, but the pope is not of the essence of that faith. The essence of that faith is salvation through the application of the merits of the Precious Blood of Christ to the sinner (Council of Trent), an application some of us were taught (and/or believe) requires the sacraments or an explicit desire for the sacraments, an explicit faith in Christ and conscious participation and communion with His Passion and saving work on Calvary - in short, a Catholic faith and experience of it (at least by desire).

Here’s what I think:

First, some context; on Fr. Z’s blog, wchoag writes:

Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, formulator of the sedeprivationist Cassiciacum thesis which holds that recent Popes are “papa materialiter non formaliter” because of their supposed Modernism, was among the composers of the “Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass” which accompanied the Ottaviani/Bacci letter of 5 June 1969 to Paul VI. The intervention had two parts: the critical study and the letter. That latter was substantially the composition of Ottaviani and Bacci endorsing the content of the accompanying study.

Other important contributors to the critical study were Msgr. Lefebvre, his peritus, and Msgr. Sigaud.

Fr_Sotelo comments:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on November 12, 1969 responded to the study and declared that the so-called Ottaviani Intervention contained statements that were: “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false.” Truer words could hardly be found to describe this “critical” “study” of the new Missal.

I don’t know why it is referred to as a critical study, as if there was anything scholarly to it. It was a study which criticized, but that does not make it “critical” in the sense of erudite and citing original sources of Catholic Tradition. Not a single Father is quoted from antiquity, and not a single text is cited from pre-Gregorian liturgy of either the West or the East. Yet it is claimed that this study shows the “departure” of the Ordinary Form Mass from the ancient Faith of the Church.

From the entire publication of the new Roman Missal a few, choice quotes are presented from the General Instruction and the Ordinary of the Mass. These quotes are then asserted to prove that the Missal of Paul VI departs from Roman liturgical tradition, the best of the Eastern liturgies, and the intentions of the Fathers at Trent. And these assertions are supposed to be accepted without hardly a quote from original sources, basically based on the authority of the authors of the study.

Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and Fr. Cekada made their decision, and Cardinal Ottaviani made his ... to stand with the CDF and Pope.

Tornpage wrote:
If it comes to the pope or the faith, the faith wins.

You do realize that every condemned schismatic in the history of the Church said the same thing. It's a false “choice”. It’s also heretical. And here I thought you believed that Peter had a “never-failing-faith”.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:Did Cardinal Ottaviani invisage at the time the complete vernacularisation of the NO with all its mutalzations to the point were they could not accurately translate the words of consecration correctly?

He clearly did not envisage persons such as yourself accusing the Supreme Pontiff of "sacrilege" for approving the English translation to the Novus Ordo.

He would not have been amused in the least, and would have been appalled at your accusations against the Supreme Pontiff.

The "Supreme" Pontiff while to-and-froing between orthodoxy and man-pleasing had himself some very unkind words to say regardng the Novus Ordo Mass while he was cardinal. I merely agree with him in his moment of clarity.

Why can’t you address the Holy Father with a bit of Catholic humility and respect instead of with these snarky put-downs and condescending remarks?

Why have you adopted the irreverent language and haughty style of the sedevacantist, and worse, the radical rad-trads who feign “submission” to the Holy Father by half-nodding (with a smirk) towards his picture in the entry to their “independent” Chapels, but who can’t wait to knock him down when commenting on the latest “scandal” and “man-pleasing”.

You certainly do not appear to be sitting on any cautionary fence, you appear to have already swallowed the sede Kool-Aid.

Can’t you stop pretending?

columba wrote:
I haven't accused the Supreme Pontiff of anything. I've placed a few quotes of his on the board from time to time and just let him speak for himself. It is of course considered very anti-catholic in these days to quote a pope as doing so usually reveals some phrase or other offensive to pius ears and then the poster gets the blame for putting such quotes up for discussion.

Oh, really? Saying that it “is beyond sacrilegious … that a proper translation was not rendered and hence had to be corrected 50+ yrs later, then all would be well but the fact that the holy sacrifice of the Mass was not worth the effort of ensuring precision in the first place”, is not directed at the Supreme Pontiff?

And at whose feet does this misplaced and inaccurate accusation of “beyond sacrilegious” belong”?

Gee, I wonder.

MRyan wrote:
Why can’t you address the Holy Father with a bit of Catholic humility and respect instead of with these snarky put-downs and condescending remarks?

Why have you adopted the irreverent language and haughty style of the sedevacantist, and worse, the radical rad-trads who feign “submission” to the Holy Father by half-nodding (with a smirk) towards his picture in the entry to their “independent” Chapels, but who can’t wait to knock him down when commenting on the latest “scandal” and “man-pleasing”.

You certainly do not appear to be sitting on any cautionary fence, you appear to have already swallowed the sede Kool-Aid.

Can’t you stop pretending?

First off, I placed the word "supreme" in quote marks, not because I believe a Pope doesn't hold a posistion of supremacy but rather because the Pope himself does not believe it. If he has no authority over all the members of the Church of Christ then he is not their Pope and therefore not supreme. It were not I who invented The Church of Christ as distinct from (but part of) the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Secondly: There are countless millions held in slavery by the devil in false religions and each one of these souls is currently on the road to hell if they do not convert to the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved. To imply that these diobolical sects are estemed by God is certainly pleasing to their ears. To not call them to repentance is "man pleasing."

I've said what I said without a smirk because there's nothing to smirk about.

MRyan wrote:
Oh, really? Saying that it “is beyond sacrilegious … that a proper translation was not rendered and hence had to be corrected 50+ yrs later, then all would be well but the fact that the holy sacrifice of the Mass was not worth the effort of ensuring precision in the first place”, is not directed at the Supreme Pontiff?

And at whose feet does this misplaced and inaccurate accusation of “beyond sacrilegious” belong”?

Gee, I wonder.

Who ever the cap fits should wear it.
The buck must stop somewhere.

Tornpage wrote:
If it comes to the pope or the faith, the faith wins.

You do realize that every condemned schismatic in the history of the Church said the same thing. It's a false “choice”. It’s also heretical. And here I thought you believed that Peter had a “never-failing-faith”.

Of course, you are right in the big picture here if not in the details.

If you say "no" to the pope in an area which he exercises legitimate and binding authority - such as approving a liturgy for the universal Church - one must effectively be saying no to his legitimacy as pope, and effectively saying he is not the true pope. If he were, there is really no excuse for you saying "no." This is ineluctable. I used to argue that myself as to the NO with SSPX types . . . I do know better; thanks for reminding me. Again, the value of these discussions.

I still believe that there are SSPXers and others who do not declare the seat vacant and yet proclaim the NO as "evil," as least to them as a matter of their conscience and praxis living the faith (e.g., they will not go NO to fulfill their obligation), who may be in good faith. But as for me - you're right, Mike, if I take that tack . . . I know better: I see the logical fallacy in such an approach.

Scripture tells us of a day when man invades the Temple and proclaims himself God. It doesn't say that when he does the seat becomes "vacant," but then it doesn't talk much about the "seat" at all. But logic and honesty does indeed dictate that we can't have our cake ( a pope with full plenary power over the faith in Christ's Church) and eat him (the pope) too.

If the pope is not a heretic, he is the pope. Very good. I can't give him a pass (thinking, poor soul, he's subject to "modernism" and lost hold of a Thomistic epistemology and philosophy, and so adrift but personally of good faith and not a heretic - this would be "my cake") and yet tell him to bug off when he says, effectively, get your ass to Church and obey the precepts of the Church, even if it means the NO (which would be "eating my cake").

We do need to draw the lines sharp.

Thank you.

Columba wrote:
"There are countless millions held in slavery by the devil in false religions and each one of these souls is currently on the road to hell if they do not convert to the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved".

So how would these millions go about converting to the Catholic Church, Columba?
Keep in mind that as Catholics they will be expecting their Church to have a visible head and they will probably wish to avail of the sacraments frequently.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Why can’t you address the Holy Father with a bit of Catholic humility and respect instead of with these snarky put-downs and condescending remarks?

Why have you adopted the irreverent language and haughty style of the sedevacantist, and worse, the radical rad-trads who feign “submission” to the Holy Father by half-nodding (with a smirk) towards his picture in the entry to their “independent” Chapels, but who can’t wait to knock him down when commenting on the latest “scandal” and “man-pleasing”.

You certainly do not appear to be sitting on any cautionary fence, you appear to have already swallowed the sede Kool-Aid.

Can’t you stop pretending?

First off, I placed the word "supreme" in quote marks, not because I believe a Pope doesn't hold a posistion of supremacy but rather because the Pope himself does not believe it. If he has no authority over all the members of the Church of Christ then he is not their Pope and therefore not supreme. It were not I who invented The Church of Christ as distinct from (but part of) the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

This has to be one of the most inane things you have ever said. Let’s see: The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, but he himself does not believe that he hold supremacy (Primacy of supreme, immediate and episcopal authority and jurisdiction) over the universal Catholic Church.

What?

Is this like "Ffot" saying that “Benedict XVI might have stated that ‘Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches’ does not mean that is what he truly believes, heretics always contradict themselves”.

Is that right, columba; are you not saying “Benedict XVI might have stated that ‘the pope holds a position of supremacy’”, but “the Pope himself does not believe it”; after all, “heretics always contradict themselves”?

Like I said, stop with the pretense of “cautious” unity with the pope (there is no such thing as “cautious unity” – you are either united with the Roman Pontiff – or you aren’t).

columba wrote:
Secondly: There are countless millions held in slavery by the devil in false religions and each one of these souls is currently on the road to hell if they do not convert to the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved. To imply that these diobolical sects are estemed by God is certainly pleasing to their ears. To not call them to repentance is "man pleasing."

Call yourself to repentance first before telling the Eastern Orthodox, who have valid apostolic succession and valid Sacraments (and thus, valid means of grace), and whose particular churches serve as conduits for the grace of the one true Church of Christ, that they are diabolical sects who are hated by God.

Call yourself to repentance first before condemning Lumen Gentium, Dominus Iesus and, as the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope and his (the Church’s) teaching that no longer recognizes obstinacy or pertinacity in the will of the Orthodox, and thus, their separation from the one true Church, while still objectively schismatic, no longer constitutes, in the eyes of the Church, formal heresy and schism. And shame on the pope for seeking to unite the Orthodox into full communion with the one true Church of Christ. He should know by now that calling the Orthodox “heretics and schismatics”, hurling anathemas and threatening them with eternal damnation is the only real definition of “true charity”.

Wow, the pope exercises his “Supreme” authority, and the moment he does – off with his head!

Again, you really should stop with this false pretense.

simple Faith wrote:Columba wrote:
"There are countless millions held in slavery by the devil in false religions and each one of these souls is currently on the road to hell if they do not convert to the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved".

So how would these millions go about converting to the Catholic Church, Columba?
Keep in mind that as Catholics they will be expecting their Church to have a visible head and they will probably wish to avail of the sacraments frequently.

Also keep in mind that they should not be expecting a "minister" from the sect they may have just converted from preaching at the mass they may be attending. Sure, doesn't happen everywhere, but that it happens at all is . . . not good.

simple Faith wrote:Columba wrote:
"There are countless millions held in slavery by the devil in false religions and each one of these souls is currently on the road to hell if they do not convert to the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved".

So how would these millions go about converting to the Catholic Church, Columba?
Keep in mind that as Catholics they will be expecting their Church to have a visible head and they will probably wish to avail of the sacraments frequently.

First they would receive catechesis in the truths of the Catholic Faith an from there they could determine as to where they should receive the sacraments. As for the Pope; he doesn't seem to mind whether they acknowledge him or not as leader as they are already on the road to salvation by means of certain truths contained within their sects.

So Columba, are you saying there is no actual visible Church that exists that you want all these millions to convert to?
You are saying that each individual convert can make up his or her own mind on what sacraments are needed and from who they should receive these?
And are you saying that these new Catholic converts do not have to recognise the Pope as the head of the Catholic church which they have converted to?
Please don't answer with your usual "well that what the Pope says". I'm asking you what you think these millions of new converts should do and who you believe they should follow as leader.

MRyan wrote:
This has to be one of the most inane things you have ever said. Let’s see: The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, but he himself does not believe that he hold supremacy (Primacy of supreme, immediate and episcopal authority and jurisdiction) over the universal Catholic Church.

What?

The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church does it not?
Define the Church of Christ (as in Lumen Gentium) and then ask yourself if the Pope believes he has supreme authority over all its members.

Is this like "Ffot" saying that “Benedict XVI might have stated that ‘Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches’ does not mean that is what he truly believes, heretics always contradict themselves”

Is this like "Ffot" saying that “Benedict XVI might have stated that ‘Protestant institutions, not being in full communion with Rome, are not true churches’ does not mean that is what he truly believes, heretics always contradict themselves”

If they are not true churches' then there can be no salvation within them. Is this what the Pope declares?

Is that right, columba; are you not saying “Benedict XVI might have stated that ‘the pope holds a position of supremacy’”, but “the Pope himself does not believe it”; after all, “heretics always contradict themselves”?

That's what I'm saying Mike. Those seperated from the one true Church are not part of her membership yet they are now considered part of the Church of Christ and the Pope has no authority over this part of the Church. If he acknowledges that those outside the communion of the Catholic faith are not part of "the Church of Christ" then he will have reclaimed his supremacy.

Like I said, stop with the pretense of “cautious” unity with the pope (there is no such thing as “cautious unity” – you are either united with the Roman Pontiff – or you aren’t).

On what authority do you base that statement? An erring Pope can be resisted can he not? The things being resisted would be the things where no unity exixts between Pope and people or novelty and tradition.

Call yourself to repentance first before telling the Eastern Orthodox, who have valid apostolic succession and valid Sacraments (and thus, valid means of grace), and whose particular churches serve as conduits for the grace of the one true Church of Christ, that they are diabolical sects who are hated by God.

Call yourself to repentance first before condemning Lumen Gentium, Dominus Iesus and, as the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope and his (the Church’s) teaching that no longer recognizes obstinacy or pertinacity in the will of the Orthodox, and thus, their separation from the one true Church, while still objectively schismatic, no longer constitutes, in the eyes of the Church, formal heresy and schism. And shame on the pope for seeking to unite the Orthodox into full communion with the one true Church of Christ.
Wow, the pope exercises his “Supreme” authority, and the moment he does – off with his head!

You totally missed the mark. The diobolical sects being referred to where those of Islam, Buddhism, and the rest who gathered at Assisi. Why not call these to repentance?
A very good defense of the Orthodox Mike. In defending them you are also defending those sedevacantist Bishops who have valid apostolic succession. They too are a means of grace and you too, should know by now that calling the cautious “heretics and schismatics”, hurling anathemas and threatening them with eternal damnation is the only real definition of “true charity”.
Making known my reasons for caution does by that very fact entail the highlighting of those things that cause the grievance.

simple Faith wrote:So Columba, are you saying there is no actual visible Church that exists that you want all these millions to convert to?
You are saying that each individual convert can make up his or her own mind on what sacraments are needed and from who they should receive these?
And are you saying that these new Catholic converts do not have to recognise the Pope as the head of the Catholic church which they have converted to?
Please don't answer with your usual "well that what the Pope says". I'm asking you what you think these millions of new converts should do and who you believe they should follow as leader.

O there is a visibe Church alright. In the words of St. Athanasius, "Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Each individual convert would make up their mind according to their wits and in light of their understanding as to what the Church in fact is which they would know through proper catechesis.

As for me, I'd tell them to follow those who follow the truth and be cautious of those who do not speak plainly even if it be a pope. In doing so they will be following the advice of one of the church's great saint Popes; St Pope Pius X.
As your forum name suggests: The faith is simple you know.

Peregrinus wrote: In layman's terms how does one refute the whole sedesvacantist heresy.[/b]

Here's a different take on the matter: Don't. Don't try to refute it.

It may seem an odd answer at first, but I'd wager that it is the most wise, most intelligent answer if, and only if, some alternative course of action which makes more sense is employed.

What is that course of action? Prayer for them, patience with them, lending an ear but not necessarily agreement, backed up by your constant spoken adherence to the Catholic Faith.

Why NOT attempt to refute them? Because it feeds the root cause of their problem, which to put it as simply as possible, is the inordinate desire to subserviate the Catholic Faith to the human intellect.

The sedevacantist thrives on the constant piling up of ream after ream of text, endless argumentation and conflict, endless attempts to fit all of reality within striking distance of their complete understanding. Why feed their vice of intellectual intemperance? Lend them an ear as they ramble, and then gently encourage them to pray, accept the sufferings of this life, recommit themselves to their daily duty, and to seek hiddenness and humility.

In others words, let them cure themselves the way all Christians are cured. The problem comes from within them, not from without, and so healing must come from within them as well. You can't do much beyond encouraging them to heal themselves.

Refutation is useless.

Pascendi wrote:

Peregrinus wrote:
In layman's terms how does one refute the whole sedesvacantist heresy.[/b]


Here's a different take on the matter: Don't. Don't try to refute it.

It may seem an odd answer at first, but I'd wager that it is the most wise, most intelligent answer if, and only if, some alternative course of action which makes more sense is employed.

What is that course of action? Prayer for them, patience with them, lending an ear but not necessarily agreement, backed up by your constant spoken adherence to the Catholic Faith.

Why NOT attempt to refute them? Because it feeds the root cause of their problem, which to put it as simply as possible, is the inordinate desire to subserviate the Catholic Faith to the human intellect.

The sedevacantist thrives on the constant piling up of ream after ream of text, endless argumentation and conflict, endless attempts to fit all of reality within striking distance of their complete understanding. Why feed their vice of intellectual intemperance? Lend them an ear as they ramble, and then gently encourage them to pray, accept the sufferings of this life, recommit themselves to their daily duty, and to seek hiddenness and humility.

In others words, let them cure themselves the way all Christians are cured. The problem comes from within them, not from without, and so healing must come from within them as well. You can't do much beyond encouraging them to heal themselves.

Refutation is useless.

Wise words to pray and reflect on for I am but a lowly sinner. Thank you. I do not think I will need to revisit this but if for the sake of just one person to return to the Church , I risked to rebuke rather than the the highest and holiest road of prayer and good example. If I have overstepped my bounds, I am truly sorry.

George,

Those may be words of wisdom, but they must be placed into context; for, while having its place, it is not the only answer, and it is not always the most correct answer (for those unprepared to refute sedeism, it is indeed wise advice).

However, if the saints of old took that advice of “refutation is useless”, the errors of the heretics would never have been confronted head-on and exposed.

Sometimes its best to "Don't try to refute them"; sometimes its commendable to refute them, and sometimes it's time to knock the dust off one's sandals and move on.

Wisdom lies in knowing how to discern the appropriate action to take, and knowing one's limitations.

The “Don't. Don't try to refute this” line must be taken for what it is … and I’ll leave it that.

Pascendi's words (with slight modification as follows) could also be used the other way around; that is; if the question had of been, "In layman's terms how does one refute the whole modernist heresy."

It may seem an odd answer at first, but I'd wager that it is the most wise, most intelligent answer if, and only if, some alternative course of action which makes more sense is employed.

What is that course of action? Prayer for them, patience with them, lending an ear but not necessarily agreement, backed up by your constant spoken adherence to the true Catholic Faith.

Why NOT attempt to refute them? Because it feeds the root cause of their problem, which to put it as simply as possible, is the inordinate desire to subserviate the Catholic Faith to human preferences.

The modernist, novus ordoite thrives on the constant piling up of ream after ream of ambiguous text, endless argumentation and conflict, endless attempts to fit all of reality within striking distance of their complete, humamistic understanding. Why feed their vice of intellectual sloth? Lend them an ear as they ramble, and then gently encourage them to pray, accept the sufferings of this life, recommit themselves to their daily duty, and to seek hiddenness and humility.

In others words, let them cure themselves the way all Christians are cured. The problem comes from within them, not from without, and so healing must come from within them as well. You can't do much beyond encouraging them to heal themselves.

Refutation is useless.

MRyan said:

However, if the saints of old took that advice of “refutation is useless”, the errors of the heretics would never have been confronted head-on and exposed.

Sometimes its best to "Don't try to refute them"; sometimes its commendable to refute them, and sometimes it's time to knock the dust off one's sandals and move on.

Wisdom lies in knowing how to discern the appropriate action to take, and knowing one's limitations.

The “Don't. Don't try to refute this” line must be taken for what it is … and I’ll leave it that.

I can not quite leave it at that without saying the following.

After prayer, reflection and further review , let me add, The parish that I went to grade school at , the parish that I was an altar boy at, the parish that I got married at, the parish that our children went to school for years at, the parish that I attend now in addition to going to the Latin Mass at another parish and finally the parish, that my wife and I along with some of our children and all of our grandchildren go to to school, pray at, receive the sacraments at is:

HOLY FAMILY PARISH