"Pro Multis"

MRyan Thu May 03, 2012 12:36 pm

May 3, 2012 -- "Pro Multis"

"Qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur." —The words of the consecration of the wine in the Mass, meaning literally "(my blood) which is poured out for you and for many"

"But when He added pro multis He wanted that there be understood the rest of those chosen (electos) from the Jews or from the Gentiles. Rightly therefore did it happen that for all (pro universis) were not said, since at this point the discourse was only about the fruits of the Passion which bears the fruit of salvation only for the elect." —Roman Catechism (the Catechism produced after the Council of Trent), 1566

"That consensus is shattered." —Pope Benedict XVI, letter to German bishops. April 14, 2012, referring to the consensus after the Second Vatican Council that the words "pro multis" could be better translated as "for all" instead of "for many"

A Decisive Letter

By now many of you will have heard that, just after Easter, Pope Benedict, though resting at Castel Gandolfo, picked up his pen to write a decisive letter to the German bishops' conference.

In his letter, dated April 14 (copy below both in German and in English translation), Benedict insisted that the German-speaking bishops translate the Latin words "pro multis" (literally: "for many") used at the moment of the consecration of the wine during Mass (in both the old and new liturgy) literally as "for many" ("für viele") and not "for all" ("für alle"), as they had been doing.

This action -- both the way the Pope acted and the argumentation he used -- has theological, philosophical, liturgical, ecclesial and moral implications; one could write a dissertation about it, and I am sure some will, someday.

But, essentially, for our purposes here and now, it means three things:

(1) that Pope Benedict, though now 85, and obviously more tired than he was a few years ago, is still able to take decisive action, and this suggests we may expect more decisive actions from him in future, despite his age;

(2) that Benedict continues to employ dialogue, reason, and persuasion as his preferred tools in contested matters; rather than simply saying "translate it this way, and that's final," he spends considerable time and effort to engage his interlocutors (the German bishops) and explain to them why the words should be translated in the way he wishes; and

(3) that Benedict continues, through a process of slow steps -- too slow for many traditionalists, too fast for most progressives -- to restore traditional Catholic teaching, in keeping with his prime task as Pope of defending the depositum fidei ("deposit of the faith") against temptations to innovate -- powerful temptations, which have in the post-conciliar period swayed many to give up what was handed down in order to keep in step with a presumed "spirit of the times" which has often turned out to be a spirit of confusion and of rejection of key Catholic doctrines, despite protestations to the contrary.

In short, Benedict is still decisive, he still has a powerful, reasoning mind, and seems today, in fact, more intent than ever to defend the deposit of the faith.

But I would stress one point in this regard: those who fear "the conservative Pope," fearing that burdens too heavy to bear will once again be placed upon the shoulders of the faithful, should know that Benedict, pyschologically and pastorally, has never been, and is not now, a cruel person, a rigorist who would demand that people obey his commands, or even Church rules, without understanding them, their goal and value, and therefore without assenting to them in conscience; rather, as a professor and as a pastor, he values reason, and the assent of reason, as a complement to willing assent to Church teaching. This is the essence of his pastoral method.

He privileges the person, and that aspect of the person which is most precious, the conscience, and continues to attempt to form that conscience, even in our age of considerable confusion, and ignorance.

And the goal of this effort is not to make people submit to a distant, incomprehensible "diktat," but to defend and restore a form of Christian worship, and of Christian life, which brings to men and women the graces of clarity, truth, reason, and, ultimately, blessedness, which is the true name of happiness.

So when Benedict acts to restore an element of Catholic tradition, he is not acting to curtail human joy, but to protect true human joy, though not many seem to understand this, and so criticize him sharply.

That said, the main point has been made.

It remains to be said that Benedict was so anxious to persuade the German bishops of the rightness of this translation, that he took the time to explain the whole post-conciliar period, in miniature, rather than simply quoting the Roman Catechism, which dealt with this matter in a quite clear way 450 years ago.

This is what the Roman Catechism, promulgated after the Council of Trent says about the words "pro multis":

"But the words which are added for you and for many (pro vobis et pro multis), were taken some of them from Matthew (26: 28) and some from Luke (22: 20) which however Holy Church, instructed by the Spirit of God, joined together. They serve to make clear the fruit and the benefit of the Passion. For if we examine its value (virtutem), it will have to be admitted that Blood was poured out by the Savior for the salvation of all (pro omnium salute sanguinem a Salvatore effusum esse); but if we ponder the fruit which men (homines) will obtain from it, we easily understand that its benefit comes not to all, but only to many (non ad omnes, sed ad multos tantum eam utilitatem pervenisse). Therefore when He said pro vobis, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen (delectos) from the people of the Jews such as the disciples were, Judas excepted, with whom He was then speaking. But when He added pro multis He wanted that there be understood the rest of those chosen (electos) from the Jews or from the gentiles. Rightly therefore did it happen that for all (pro universis) were not said, since at this point the discourse was only about the fruits of the Passion which bears the fruit of salvation only for the elect (delectis). And this is what the words of the Apostle aim at: Christ was offered up once in order to remove the sins of many (ad multorum exhaurienda peccata Heb 9:28); and what according to John the Lord says: I pray for them; I do not pray for the world, but for those whom you gave to Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9). Many other mysteries (plurima mysteria) lie hidden in the words of this consecration, which pastors, God helping, will easily come to comprehend for themselves by constant meditation upon divine things and by diligent study. (translated from the Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 4 (264.7-265.14), taken from the original Latin in Catechismus Romanus seu Catechsimus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos …. Editio critica. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989, p. 250. Cf. The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Trans. John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1934, pp. 227-28.)

Here is some background to this story:

On October 17, 2006 -- so, more than 5 years ago -- the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments sent a circular (No. 467/05/L) to Presidents of Episcopal Conferences on the question of the translation of "pro multis." It noted that a 1974 declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had pointed out that "for all" is not a literal translation of "pro multis", nor of the words "περὶ πολλῶν" in Matthew 26:28 or "ὑπὲρ πολλῶν" in Mark 14:24. "For all," it said, is not so much a translation as "an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis." It then directed the Episcopal Conferences to make an effort, in line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, to translate the words pro multis "more faithfully."

So the Pope was dealing with an issue that the Vatican had asked the German bishops to address more than five years ago.

In English-speaking countries, the revised translation was ordered to be used from 2011 on, and this has taken place.

Some German-speaking episcopal conferences have been more reluctant to make the change. Now, in his April 14, 2012, personal letter to the German bishops, Pope Benedict XVI stresses the importance of using the literal translation.

=======

Here is a useful summary published today by Sandro Magister, though he does not name the author of the piece. His remarks about John Paul II's attitude to this particular issue are very interesting, and especially important is the story he tells of the protest of Cardinal Ratzinger a few days before John Paul's death in 2005 against a wording used in a text John Paul did sign, but perhaps (this article suggests) while not in full possession of his faculties. I send the piece in its entirety, with those two sections bold-faced:

Vatican Diary

"For many" or "for all"? The right answer is the first

Benedict XVI writes as much to the German bishops. And he wants the whole Church to respect the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, without inventing others like in the postconciliar missals. The complete text of the pope's letter

by ***

VATICAN CITY, May 3, 2012 – The Churches of various nations of the world are restoring one after another, in the Mass, the words of the consecration of the chalice taken verbatim from the Gospels and in use for centuries, but in recent decades replaced almost everywhere with a different translation.

While the traditional text in its foundational Latin version still says: "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei […] qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur," the new postconciliar formulas have read into "pro multis" an imaginary "pro omnibus." And instead of "for many," they have translated "for all."

Already in the last phase of the pontificate of John Paul II, the attempt was made by a few Vatican officials, including Joseph Ratzinger, to revive in the translations fidelity to "pro multis." But with no success.

Benedict XVI has taken the situation in hand personally. Proof of this is in the letter that he wrote last April 14 to the bishops of Germany.

The complete translation of the letter is reproduced further below. In it, Benedict XVI summarizes the main issues of the controversy, to substantiate better his decision to restore a correct translation of "pro multis."

But in order to understand the context thoroughly, it is helpful to recall a few elements here.

*

In the first place, in addressing his letter to the bishops of Germany, Benedict XVI also intends to address through them the bishops of the other German-speaking regions: Austria, the German cantons in Switzerland, South Tyrol in Italy.

If in Germany, in fact, although with strong resistance, the episcopal conference recently opted to translate "pro multis" no longer with "für alle," for all, but with "für viele," for many, in Austria this is not the case.

And not in Italy either. In November of 2010, in a vote, out of 187 voting bishops only 11 sided with "per molti." An overwhelming majority voted in favor of "per tutti," indifferent to the Vatican guidelines. Shortly beforehand, the episcopal conferences of the sixteen Italian ecclesiastical regions, with the sole exception of Liguria, had spoken out for the retention of the formula "per tutti."

In other parts of the world they are returning to the use of "for many": in Latin America, in Spain, in Hungary, in the United States. Often with disagreement and disobedience.

But Benedict XVI clearly wants to see this one all the way through. Without impositions, but urging the bishops to prepare the clergy and the faithful, with appropriate catechesis, for a change that must come no matter what.

After this letter, it is therefore easy to predict that "per molti" will also be restored in the Masses celebrated in Italy, in spite of the contrary vote of the bishops in 2010.

The new version of the missal, approved by the Italian episcopal conference, is currently under examination by the Vatican congregation for divine worship. And on this point it will certainly be correct according to the pope's guidelines.

*

A second annotation concerns the continual obstacles that the restoration of a correct translation of "for many" has encountered on its way.

Until 2001, the proponents of more "free" translations of the liturgical texts appealed to a document put together in 1969 by the "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia," the secretary of which was Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, an unsigned document unusually drafted in French, ordinarily cited by its first words: "Comme le prévoit."

In 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship published an instruction, "Liturgiam Authenticam," for the correct implementation of the conciliar liturgical reform. The text, dated March 28, was signed by Cardinal Prefect Jorge Arturo Medina Estevez and by archbishop secretary Francesco Pio Tamburrino, and had been approved by John Paul II in an audience granted eight days before by Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano.

Recalling that the Roman rite "has its own style and structure that must be respected in so far as possible in translation," the instruction recommended a translation of the liturgical texts that would be "not so much a work of creative inventiveness as one of fidelity and exactness in rendering the Latin texts into a vernacular language." Good translations – the documents prescribed – "must be freed from exaggerated dependence on modern modes of expression and in general from psychologizing language."

The instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam" didn't even cite "Comme le prévoit." And it was a voluntary omission, to deprive that text definitively of an authority and officiality that it had never had.

But in spite of that, the instruction encountered extremely strong resistance, even within the Roman curia, so much so that it was ignored and contradicted by two subsequent pontifical documents.

The first is the encyclical of John Paul II "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" of 2003. In paragraph 2, where it recalls the words of Jesus for the consecration of the wine, it reads: "'Take this, all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven' (cf. Mt 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)." The "for all" there is a variation that has no basis in the biblical texts cited, evidently introduced from listening to the translations present in the postconciliar missals.

The second document is the last of the letters that John Paul II customarily addressed to priests each Holy Thursday. It was dated Policlinico Gemelli, March 13 2005, and in the fourth paragraph said:

"'Hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur.' The body and the blood of Christ are given for the salvation of man, of the whole man and of all men. This salvation is integral and at the same time universal, because no one, unless he freely chooses, is excluded from the saving power of Christ's blood: 'qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur.' It is a sacrifice offered for 'many,' as the Biblical text says (Mk 14:24; Mt 26:28; cf. Is 53:11-12); this typical Semitic expression refers to the multitude who are saved by Christ, the one Redeemer, yet at the same time it implies the totality of human beings to whom salvation is offered: the Lord's blood is 'shed for you and for all,' as some translations legitimately make explicit. Christ's flesh is truly given 'for the life of the world' (Jn 6:51; cf. 1 Jn 2:2)."

John Paul II had his life hanging from a thread, he would be dead about twenty days later. And it was a Pope in this condition, without even the strength to read anymore, who was made to sign a document in favor of the formula "for all."

At the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which had not been given the text ahead of time, the matter was noted with disappointment. So much so that a few days later, on March 21, Monday of Holy Week, in a tumultuous meeting of the heads of some dicasteries of the curia, Cardinal Ratzinger registered his protests.

And less than a month later, Ratzinger was elected pope. Announced to the world with visible satisfaction by Cardinal Protodeacon Medina, the same who had signed the instruction "Liturgiam Authenticam."

*

With Benedict XVI as Pope, the restoration of a correct translation of "pro multis" immediately became an objective of his "reform of the reform" in the liturgical arena.

He knew that he would encounter tenacious opposition. But in this arena he has never been afraid of making tough decisions, as proven by the 2007 motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum" for the liberalization of the Mass in the ancient rite.

One fact of great interest is the manner in which Benedict XVI wants to implement his decisions. Not exclusively with peremptory orders, but through persuasion.

Three months after his election as Pope, he had the congregation for worship, headed at the time by Cardinal Francis Arinze, conduct a survey among the episcopal conferences to find out their views on the translation of "pro multis" with "for many."

Having gathered these views, on October 17, 2006, at the instructions of the pope, Cardinal Arinze sent a circular letter to all the episcopal conferences, listing six reasons in favor of "for many" and urging them – wherever the formula "for all" was in use – to "undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful" in view of the change.

It is the catechesis that Benedict XVI suggests be made in Germany in particular, in the letter he sent to the German bishops last April 14. In which he points out that it does not appear to him that this pastoral initiative authoritatively suggested six years ago has ever been undertaken.

Two marginal notes on the papal text: 1) The "Gotteslob" is the common book of hymns and prayers in use in the German-speaking Catholic dioceses. 2) The citation "May thanks be given to the Lord who, by his grace, has called me into his Church..." is the last verse of the first stanza of a song frequently sung in German churches: "Fest soll mein Taufbund immer stehen".

======================

And here is some further backround information on this matter.

Pro multis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_multis]

============

Lombardi editorial: For you and for many

The Holy See spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., clarifies the correct interpretation of the wording to be used during the consecration of the wine during mass

(Taken from VATICANINSIDER)

According to the rules of Mass, “the translation of the phrase 'for many' – which is more faithful to the Biblical text – is to be preferred to the translation 'for all,' a modification of the Biblical translation which was intended to clarify the universality of the salvation which was brought about by Christ.” The Holy See’s spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed this in a statement to Vatican Radio, explaining the content of a letter which Benedict XVI sent in recent days to German bishops, on the question of the correct interpretation of the wording to be used for the consecration of the wine during mass. Fr. Lombardi stressed that “There is no doubt that Jesus died so that everyone might be saved. This, along with the profound significance of the words that are used for the institution of the Eucharist, should be explained to the faithful through the use of solid catechesis.”

Indeed, “The words which are used for the institution of the Eucharist are fundamentally important for Pope Benedict, because these words lie at the heart of the Church. By saying 'for many,' Jesus is saying that he is the Servant of Yahweh who was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. When we say 'for many,' therefore, we both express our fidelity to the word of Jesus, and recognize Jesus’ fidelity to the words of the Scripture.” This question – Lombardi stressed – is of “profound theological and spiritual significance” to all Christians. Indeed, “When the Lord offers himself 'for you and for many,' Fr. Lombardi explained, we become directly involved and, in gratitude, we take on the responsibility for the salvation which is promised to everyone.

“The Holy Father – who has already touched upon this in his book about Jesus – is providing here profound and insightful catechesis about some of the most important words in the Christian Faith. The Pope concludes by saying that, in this Year of Faith, we must proceed with love and respect for the Word of God, reflecting on its profound theological and spiritual significance so that we might experience the Eucharist with greater depth,” Fr. Lombardi said.

Fr. Lombardi ended, stating that, in the letter the Pope wrote from Castel Gandolfo during his brief Easter visit, he “concludes by saying that in this Year of Faith we must make efforts to proceed in this direction. We hope to really do so.”

====================

The complete text of Pope Benedict's April 14 letter to the German bishop, in English (translation found at: http://incaelo.wordpress.com/translations/10761-2/)

George Brenner Thu May 03, 2012 2:46 pm

Great post, Mike

i knew some of what you had posted but this really gives emphasis and even more substance to the great love and appreciation we should have for our Holy Father. There may be a limit to the amount of truth and grace that a person may find themselves exposed to before the clock runs out. False or misplaced pride can be one of Satan's strongest weapons to claim us for his own. As I reflect and pray about the crisis in the Church, I am reminded that it would have been such a cruel punishment if we were to have been unassisted or lacking for leadership the last half century without our Popes. This has not been the case and I am actually ashamed of those that persecute our Pope with relentless attacks.

God Bless you, Mike

JMJ,

George

columba Thu May 03, 2012 3:15 pm

This would indicate that "pro multis" has been recognized as a defective form without mention of what the consequences of this defective form has had on the validity of the Mass. So far no mention either of the deletion of “mysterium fidei” from the consecration form and the significance of its insertion as part of the actual consecration of the wine as opposed to the what it signifies in the NO.

Which brings me back to another recent thread concerning the organic development of liturgy which I was expecting would be thrashed out a bit more but instead came to a sudden stop. From what has been said in the previous post regarding the revised translation of "pro multis," does this indicate that the NO form was not an organic deveopment from anything that existed previously but rather a totally new entity pulled out of thin air so to speak.

Here is the mentioned thread still open for further comment.

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t839-organic-development-or-not#6813

MRyan Thu May 03, 2012 4:22 pm

columba wrote:
This would indicate that "pro multis" has been recognized as a defective form without mention of what the consequences of this defective form has had on the validity of the Mass. So far no mention either of the deletion of “mysterium fidei” from the consecration form and the significance of its insertion as part of the actual consecration of the wine as opposed to the what it signifies in the NO.

A “defective translation” does not equate to a “defective form”; that later of which is specifically rejected by the same Magisterium that finally corrected the defective vernacular translation. How earnestly you strive to grasp at any long-debunked straw-man in order to justify your schism.

If you believe that the defective translation is a defect in the form of Consecration, you really do belong in the sede camp, for what you are proposing is heresy, pure and simple. And that you would even suggest that a valid Consecration requires specific mention of the “mysterium fidei” in the Ordinary form formula -- just continues to reveal an affected ignorance.

columba wrote:
Which brings me back to another recent thread concerning the organic development of liturgy which I was expecting would be thrashed out a bit more but instead came to a sudden stop. From what has been said in the previous post regarding the revised translation of "pro multis," does this indicate that the NO form was not an organic development from anything that existed previously but rather a totally new entity pulled out of thin air so to speak.

What is there to “thrash out”? I already demonstrated the inherent logically fallacy in your argument, the same one you are making again here. Any further “dialogue” would be useless.

Sometimes it’s best just to let you vent and to stew in your agenda-drive posts, especially when your agenda is so clearly on display any attempt at a rationale “debate” would be completely wasted. In fact, I am getting tired of the same old sede-tinged tripe.

The fact that you believe that the Novus Ordo was pulled out of thin air and has zero continuity with tradition is a belief that no amount of evidence to the contrary can turn you from, so what's the use? The so-called "Ottaviani Intervention" is your "Bible", even if the same good Cardinal accepted the New Mass and its authenticity by the authority of the Pope who promulgated it -- and who resolved the critical issues to the Cardinal's satisfaction, even if there were still some other problems left to resolve.

So why would I waste my time with long detailed proofs of its continuity with tradition, and the testimony of the Holy Father and of other Liturgical Scholars to the same, when I already know it would be a wasted effort? You will simply cite your rad trad friends who believe the New Mass is inherently defective, and I will cite the Church herself - which for you means absolutely nothing.

Again, so what's the point?

For example, “pro-multis” has always been retained in the official Latin Novus Ordo, and the approved vernacular (mis)translation of “for all” cannot change the sense it is understood (the same sense as in the official Latin text; e.g., “for all of those for whom the Chalice will be efficacious – the many”, and “for all of those who will receive the remission of sins”).

In fact, the Church ruled that this is the true sense (in the original Latin) that “for all” is to be understood; so the actual question was settled a long time ago – by the Church. However, the Church knew that it would best be served if the vernacular form was identical in wording to the Latin (and traditional) text.

So the fact that the vernacular mistranslation is clearly not an “organic development” is irrelevant to the fact that it is still valid, end of story (though "for all" is not without precedent, as I have demonstrated). It was a mistake, however well-intended, so why are you beating this dead horse?

Here’s the real issue: If you don’t trust the Church to provide for a valid Mass and valid Sacraments, there’s the door, it’s that simple. But, if you want to beat these dead horses because it makes you feel good; hey, feel free. But don’t be disappointed when you are ignored.

If you have time on your hands, you can respond to my thread “https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t832-auctorem-fidei-and-false-traditionalists”

Jehanne Thu May 03, 2012 6:02 pm

It should be pointed out that the use of "for all" was not used in every vernacular translation since Vatican II. I think that some Spanish translations used "for many" and always have.

columba Thu May 03, 2012 7:58 pm

I'm tired right so I'll respond to what I can in for now.

MRyan wrote:
A “defective translation” does not equate to a “defective form

And where did the Church ever teach this before? What traditional text can you reference?
Understood in its negative form (see, I'm learning from the council) it could read. "A “defective translation” can result in a “defective form."

How earnestly you strive to grasp at any long-debunked straw-man in order to justify your schism.

And how earnestly you strive to call every legitimate question "schism."
The straw man in this case has never been debunked by any appeal to tradition. Even if it could be found somewhere in the archives of Church history it would still be overridden by the promulgated rite of Pope St. Pius V.
Can it be found anywhere since the reign of Pius V?

If you believe that the defective translation is a defect in the form of Consecration, you really do belong in the sede camp, for what you are proposing is heresy, pure and simple.

Great.. So Mike can guarantee that as a direct result of the defective translation no Mass has ever been invalidated, even due to a particular priests lacking the proper intention due to his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the word "all. And it's heresey to imagine that this could happen.
Any excuse at all to include the word heresy. You're the Novus Ordo equivalent of your favorite sede's

And that you would even suggest that a valid Consecration requires specific mention of the “mysterium fidei” in the Ordinary form formula -- just continues to reveal an affected ignorance.

What I would suggest is, that if it was retained for umpteen centuries it was for a good reason. I take it you believe that it was removed for a good reason?

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
Which brings me back to another recent thread concerning the organic development of liturgy which I was expecting would be thrashed out a bit more but instead came to a sudden stop. From what has been said in the previous post regarding the revised translation of "pro multis," does this indicate that the NO form was not an organic development from anything that existed previously but rather a totally new entity pulled out of thin air so to speak.

What is there to “thrash out”? I already demonstrated the inherent logically fallacy in your argument, the same one you are making again here. Any further “dialogue” would be useless.

Not at all. The thread came to a sudden halt when I exposed the inherent logically fallacy in your argument.

Sometimes it’s best just to let you vent and to stew in your agenda-drive posts, especially when your agenda is so clearly on display any attempt at a rationale “debate” would be completely wasted. In fact, I am getting tired of the same old sede-tinged tripe.

And likewsise am I getting tired.
I already know the errors contained in your brand of theology and merely persevere in the hope that others will at least read the label before swallowing.

The fact that you believe that the Novus Ordo was pulled out of thin air and has zero continuity with tradition is a belief that no amount of evidence to the contrary can turn you from, so what's the use?

I was hoping that you could in fact produce some credible evidence to the contrary.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger actually disagreed with you and it's strange that your point of disagreement with him coincides with my point of agreement.

A lot more to say on the subject but for now. zzzz

MRyan Fri May 04, 2012 4:51 pm

The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. (Session 21 of the Council of Trent)

Review of Coomaraswamy’s “The Problem of he New Mass” by Father William G. Most

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/NEWMAS.TXT

The Problem of the New Mass

Rama P. Coomaraswamy (Vexilla Regis Cath. Bookstore, 8 Pond Place, Oyster Bay Cave, N.Y. 11771)

1. The author presumes to decide by private judgment what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament. That is the way Protestants act. It is for the Church and the Church only to decide that. The Church has decided that the New Mass is valid. To attack this shows both disobedience and lack of faith. In what the author would call "the good old days" his booklet would have been automatically forbidden reading under Canon 1399. Today under a milder law it is still, by general moral principles, sinful to propagate this book, for it can be an occasion of sin for those not capable of answering it.

2. It is also guilty of rash judgment. The injunction of Christ: "Judge not" refers not to saying that what is objectively wrong is objectively wrong - it applies to presuming to pronounce on the motives, the interior of the one doing it. That is precisely what this booklet does: it assumes that more than one Pope let a committee deliberately make the Mass invalid.

We distinguish between the Popes - Paul VI, and John Paul II--and some of the staff. It is just possible that some of staff - not the Popes - have had bad intentions. The author has documented the fact that quite a few specific wordings match those adopted by Protestants in their own worship with a heretical intention. He also cites some Vatican official (named, but I have not the booklet on hand now) who told a petitioner for the Tridentine Mass that the new Mass was a whole new Ecclesiology. That would lead him to think there was heretical intent. In spite of all that, our text is valid, for in itself it can express sound doctrine. The evil wish of some does not change the intention of the Pope and Church. And if even an ignorant priest one with deficient seminary training, who does not understand the Mass as a sacrifice, but only as a meal) intends to do what the Church does, that is sufficient for validity.

More likely there was simply a move in ecumenism, to try to make the Protestants more amenable to our Church. This in itself is laudable, but can cause confusion.

In this connection we need to carefully distinguish three things - doctrine, legislation, good judgment or managing.

As to doctrine: I should believe it because of the promises of Christ. And incidentally, He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. This booklet claims they have prevailed, by destroying the heart of the Church, the Mass. This is gross lack of faith. We are reminded of the words of the Epistle of James (2:10) saying that if someone violates one commandment, he is guilty of all. - The reason is this: He has denied the authority of the lawgiver, and so violates all. Now we might see something a bit parallel here. If a man believes all but one of the teachings of the Church, we ask: Why is it that he believes those he does believe? It seems it is not faith - for faith would lead him to accept all, not all but one. Therefore, we wonder if such a person has any faith at all. What seems to be faith is apt to be just old time stubbornness.

As to legislation and commands: We must obey unless the command is immoral. The Pope of course has not ordered anything immoral even though this author thinks two Popes have ordered or permitted the destruction of the Mass - which would be grossly immoral. Of course it did not happen!). But some U.S. Bishops have done wrong, in ordering religion textbooks for their schools which either do not convey the faith or even contradict it.

Good judgment or management: Here we look back on the first two items and ask: Is this done with good judgment? There is no promise of Christ, no claim by the Church to protection in it. Past Church history shows many defects in this. So if someone says now that there is a lack of judgment in allowing the potentially ambiguous features of the Mass texts that are mentioned, he is not breaking with the Church. But we must be careful to say no more than that it is a slip in judgment: we must not say the Mass is no longer a Mass. Then the promise of Christ to be with you all days even to the consummation of the world would have failed.

3. The author says that the claim that there is an Aramaic word behind "all" instead of many is just due to Protestant prejudice by J.Jeremias. This is a lack of scholarship. Jeremias is a fine scholar. But leaving him aside, we should know that there is a Hebrew word, "rabbim," which means the all who are many. If I would be in a room with three persons, I could say all, but could not say many. We first meet this usage not in J. Jeremias but in the prophecy of Isaiah 53. In verse 6: "The Lord laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." But then, referring to the same ones, in verses 11 and 12 we find "rabbim:" "My righteous servant will justify "rabbim"...he bore the sins of "rabbim." Further if one uses a Greek concordance to the New Testament, he finds that absolutely every time St.Paul uses Greek "polloi" as a substantive, he means all, even though "polloi" normally in Greek means many. For example in Romans 5:19: "Just as by the disobedience of the one, the "polloi" were made sinners, so by the obedience of the one man, the "polloi" will be constituted just." St. Paul clearly means original sin - he does not mean only some contract original sin. He means all. The author says we changed to all to mean all are actually saved. Nonsense. It merely means Christ died for all. Aramaic "saggi'in" at least at times has the same sense as Hebrew "rabbim." The Aramaic Targum on Isaiah 53:11 does use "saggi'in." Cf. E. C. Maloney, "Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax," pp. 141-42 (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation 51, 1981).

As to the statements of a few rather recent Saints (It is not as he claims, that the Church has always said this). They were simply showing how the only text they could think of was fitting. They had no notion of the language problem involved.

4. In the Confiteor, the author seems not to have read the new text of the Mass. On p.12: "we start out with a truncated confession 'to our brothers and sisters.' Post-Conciliar Catholics no longer beseech the Blessed Virgin, the angels and the saints for their prayers." This is simply a lie. The present text reads thus: "I confess to Almighty God [not just to brothers and sisters] and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do. And I ask Blessed Mary ever Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God." Incidentally in the old Mass we did pray to our brothers and sisters "et vobis fratres."

We turn to other canons and only by mighty straining can the author make them look like no sacrifice:

Canon 2: "Let your Spirit come [so it is the work of the Spirit, not of the congregation as author charges] upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us, the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ." So the Real Presence is clearly here....Then after the Consecration: "In memory of his death and resurrection [compare Canon 1: we celebrate the memory of Christ your Son...his passion,his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into glory] we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup [Canon 1: "the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation."]

In Canon 3: We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit [again it is the Spirit that does it, not the congregation] that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ [Real Presence], at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist [so we mean to do what He commanded]." After the consecration: Father calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation [again, much like Canon 1]...we offer you this holy and living sacrifice...see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself [this is the means of redemption, and so is sacrifice]. "...Lord may this sacrifice [the one just mentioned] which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world."

Canon 4: "Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord [Real Presence again]"....After Consecration: Father we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption, we recall Christ's death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension...we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world. Lord look upon the sacrifice which you have given to your Church...Remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice...."

No word at all thus far in any canon about a sacred meal. Many times offering and sacrifice, and what is offered is the body and blood of Christ, changed into that by the Holy Spirit, not by the congregation.

5. The quotes given saying the Church cannot change anything refer only to substantial change--which is to be judged by the Church, not by protestant private judgment. Further, the Church has actually made over the centuries many non substantial changes in forms of sacraments, especially confirmation, penance, anointing.

MRyan Fri May 04, 2012 6:16 pm

Insauratio Liturgica and Notitiae in Regard to the Novus Ordo

Insauratio Liturgica

Declaration on the meaning of translations of sacramental formulae S.C.D.F., insauratio Liturgica, 25 January 1974

The liturgical reform which has been carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the Second Vatican Council has made certain changes in the essential formulae of the sacramental rites. These new expressions, like the other ones, have had to be translated into modern languages in such a way that the original sense finds expression in the idiom proper to each language. This has given rise to certain difficulties, which have come to light now that the translations have been sent by Sacred episcopal conferences to the Holy See for approval. In these circumstances, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith again calls attention to the necessity that the essential formulae of the sacramental rites render faithfully the original sense of the Latin “typical text.” With that in mind it declares:

When a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula is submitted to the Holy See for approval, it examines it carefully. When it is satisfied that it expresses the meaning, intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.

Holiness, Pope Paul VI, in the audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect on the 25th day of January, 1974, gave his approval.

AAS 66-661; Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, declaration, 25 January, 1974. Annotations in Notitiae, 10 (1974), 396-397., 10 (1974), 396-397.

Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947:

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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.

Jehanne Sat May 05, 2012 8:07 am

I consider the New Mass to be a blessing from the Holy Spirit on multiple counts: 1) It allows the many "lukewarm faithful" to show-up and actually learn something about their faith by being able to hear the Mass (the Creed, in particular, assuming, of course, that it is even said) in their "native tongue"; 2) It preserves the "Mass of Ages" from abuse, which was starting to occur long before Pope Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo; 3) It allows both men and women, who do not feel comfortable in the traditional form of dress (veils, skirts, etc.), to attend Mass, while allowing traditional Catholics a clear place to attend Mass where they also can feel more "at home"; 4) It allows the typical lukewarm homilies to be preached to the lukewarm faithful, once again, allowing the traditional faithful and/or those whom are serious about their Faith to learn the Truth at the Tridentine Mass, if they wish; 5) It allows the use of some of the more ancient canons of the Church, which, for centuries, feel into near-complete obscurity.

MRyan Sat May 05, 2012 9:25 am

Excerpts from “Confusing Culture With 'Tradition'" by I. Shawn McElhinney

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/stickler.html

McElhinney responds to Alfons Cardinal Stickler in his “The Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass”:

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
Secondly, in the old liturgy the Canon is the center of the Mass as sacrifice.

McElhinney: The Canon of the Mass today is also the center of the Mass as sacrifice.

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
According to the testimony of the Council of Trent, the Canon traces itself back to the tradition of the apostles and was substantially complete at the time of Gregory the Great, 600.

McElhinney: But the Roman Canon was overhauled dramatically in the fifth century. As Fr. Adrian Fortescue noted in his Catholic Encyclopedia article on the liturgy:

This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon…

We have then as the conclusion of this paragraph that at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the Kiss of Peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our "Supplices" prayer. Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems there is so much in favour of Drews's theory that for the present it must be considered the right one. We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon" (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86). [8]

The Roman Canon traces itself back to the Apostles the same way that dogmas like Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception are present in the Deposit of Faith: implicitly. It took time and mature reflection to draw them out explicitly and that is the same concerning the liturgy. In addition, the "great transformation" of the canon is in principle no different whatsoever than what happened in the 1960’s. For all we know the old canon may have been cast aside in the same manner as the Roman Canon has been treated by many since 1970. The Roman Canon is still in the rite as an option and if Anaphora Two was forbidden to be used at Sunday Masses the odds are good that it would be used more frequently along with Anaphora Four. It seems that only the second and third Anaphoras are used regularly and while the third is certainly as doctrinally solid and sacrificially explicit as any Catholic could ask for, it is true that Anaphora Two is more implicit. However, this can be corrected by only allowing Anaphora Two to be used during weekdays as intended for the shorter weekday masses.

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
The Roman Church never had other canons.

McElhinney: There is quite a difference between the Roman Canon of the pre-fifth century (which looked more like the Revised Missal’s Anaphora Two) and the later Roman Canon inherited by Pope Gregory the Great in the late sixth century. There is little different in principle between multiple canons and one canon that has been so overhauled that it looks very little like it did in previous time periods.

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
Even for the mysterium fidei in the Consecration form, we have evidence from Innocent III, explicitly, at the inauguration of the Archbishop of Lyons. I don't know if the majority of liturgy reformers know about this fact. St. Thomas Aquinas in a special article justifies this mysterium fidei. And the Council of Florence explicitly confirmed the mysterium fidei in the Consecration form.

McElhinney: It was not present in any Mass canon before the fifth century and to claim that Our Lord said it when He did not is misleading. Besides, with reference to Innocent III's statements about the form of the sacrament, St. Thomas noted that:

There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate thereafter. And the words of he words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: 'In good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate'. But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ 'blessed', and this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point. [9]

Since the Eastern Churches did not use "mysterium fidei", it could not be considered an essential constituent of the sacrament. The confirmation of the Council of Florence was because of the reunion of several churches with the Roman Church and the form of the Consecration used at the time by the Roman Church. It was agreed upon for use with the reuniting Churches to remove any doubts from the minds of those who would question their orthodoxy. This is made clear in the Decree to the Armenians where the aforementioned decision was made. (And the Decree itself indicates by its language to not be confirming a judgment definitively because it spoke of setting forth "a brief schema": hardly words congruent to confirming a teaching in a definitive manner.)

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
Now, this mysterium fidei was eliminated in the Consecration words brought about in the new liturgy. Why?

McElhinney: Because Our Lord never said it and to claim that He "gave it to His disciples saying" and then putting mysterium fidei in the context of Our Lord’s words is to fabricate a mistruth.

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
We also find permission given for new canons.

McElhinney: As Pope Paul noted, there was a conscious attempt to incorporate Eastern formularies into the Revised Missal. All the Eastern rites have divers Anaphoras and this was an element borrowed from the Greek liturgies. To quote Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the matter:

It was right and proper to open up the liturgy to the vernacular; even the Council of Trent saw it as a possibility. Furthermore, it is simply untrue to say, as certain integralists do, that drawing up new forms of the Canon of the Mass is a contradiction of Trent. [10]

It is rather interesting that the Cardinal Prefect does not see things in quite the same light as Cardinal Stickler does.

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
The second one—which does not mention the sacrificial character of the Mass—with its merit of being the shortest, has virtually supplanted the old Roman Canon everywhere. Thereby, the profound theological insight given by the Council of Trent has been lost.

McElhinney: The theological insights from the Council of Trent were hardly applicable only to the Roman Canon. However, that Canon 2 does not contain the same theological depth as the other Canons and is also the virtual norm these days is indeed problematical. The shorter canon was intended for weekday Masses. It therefore does not contain the same theological depth as the other longer canons do. In this light the omissions in the shorter canon should not be seen as irregular.

However, Canons 3 and 4 do contain the same explicit theological insights as the Roman Canon (which is still in the Missal as Canon 1) with regards to the nature of the Mass offering (as the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin). Canons 3 and 4 also affirm other Catholic distinctives (communion of saints, prayers for the dead, etc.). Canon 2 does affirm the communion of saints, prayers for the dead, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, its reference to the offering as a sacrifice for sin is implicit in the symbols of the rite and not explicit in the words stated. But again one must remember that Canon 2 was intended to be a shorter canon used for weekday Masses. It could be said to be improper for use on Sundays and Holy Days because of this reason. Many priests probably use it because it is shorter. There is a simple solution to this dilemma and it is to disallow this canon from use on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. The author agrees with Cardinal Stickler here on the problem but not the solution to the problem.

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
The mystery of the divine Sacrifice is actualized in every rite, though in different ways. In the case of the Latin Mass it was emphasized by the Tridentine Council with the silent reading of the Canon in Latin. This has been discarded by the proclamation of the Canon in the new Mass out loud.

McElhinney: The early Church must have had no respect for the sacred then since the silent reading of the canon was not an early practice of the Church in the first four centuries. The canon was not only spoken aloud but even at times sung. In fact, the construction of the canon and many of its parts were written in a way to accommodate singing. (A point the author dealt with in his Prescription treatise.)

What purpose would this serve if the Canon was never recited aloud??? Obviously there is nothing wrong with a silent reading but there is at the same time nothing wrong with the priest reciting the Canon aloud. Neither is improper and neither "demystifies" the Mass one iota. If anything the louder canon approach almost assures that the laity will not either fall asleep or get distracted in other ways from the goings on at the altar - which is where their attention should be.

The primary emphasis was not on the silent reading of the Canon in Latin but the double consecration of the species. Or to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter:

Christ, by the double consecration of bread and wine mystically separated His Blood from his Body and thus in a Chalice itself poured out this blood in a sacramental way, it is at once clear that He wished to solemnize the Last Supper not as a sacrament merely but also as a Eucharistic sacrifice. [11]

It is by the double consecration that the mystery of the Eucharist as both sacrament and sacrifice are emphasized. The Revised Missal retains these crucial elements intact.

Cardinal Stickler wrote:
Third: the Vatican II reform destroyed or changed the meaning of in much of the rich symbolism in the liturgy (though it remains in the Oriental rites). The importance of this symbolism was emphasized by the Council of Trent....

McElhinney: Presumably His Eminence is referring to Gallican elements here. Indeed, the Revised Missal could (and arguably should) be more in tune with the Tridentine certainly. But at the same time, it seems that the Missal itself is more in tune with the older liturgy than it is often celebrated. The appearance of a radical discontinuity of rites has been harmful to the Church and probably no faithful Catholic would disagree. With Cardinal Ratzinger favouring a more Gallicanized PM, odds are very good that it will happen. (The Prefect has a tendency of getting his way a lot when it comes to Church matters.) However, there is also the problem of people not understanding the symbolism. All the rich symbolism in the world in no way helps the Catholic who cannot understand Latin or is not actively involved with the liturgy.

Cardinal Stickler appears to not realize that the Council of Trent made many disciplinary decisions that were right and proper for the sixteenth century that are not necessarily right and proper for our time. It is interesting that 'traditionalists' are quick to throw around the charge of "antiquarian" to movements to restore earlier practices when they do not like the particular practice. Yet they speak of such restorations as "right and proper" when it is something they do like. This is both inconsistent and arbitrary.

If the liturgical reforms of the mid twentieth century were wrong for seeking to restore earlier liturgical forms then why was Pope Pius XII not wrong in restoring Holy Week to a form from 1,000 years previous to 1958??? What made Holy Week in the late tenth century so sacred as opposed to Holy Week as celebrated in the time of Innocent III, Gregory the Great, or Callistus I??? The reform of the liturgy after Trent not wrong for seeking to put to put the liturgy more in accord with the "pristine norm of the holy Fathers" (cf. Ap. Const. Quo Primum) even though they fell short of doing this by quite a ways. (Not that they could be blamed for this mind you as they did the best they could with what they had to work with.) And likewise, the reform after Vatican II was not wrong for seeking to adapt some of the pre-sixth century liturgical forms to subsequent practices. But unlike Pope Pius V, Pope Pius XII, and company, the reforms after the Second Vatican Council are criticized for striving to achieve the exact same thing. (Not to mention succeeding in several parameters where the Tridentine reforms failed.) All of this is another example of how the criticisms of the 'traditionalists' are purely arbitrary: they hang the label of 'traditional' on anything they like and dismiss earlier practices as "antiquarian".

MRyan Sat May 05, 2012 9:49 am

Continuing with excerpts from “Confusing Culture With 'Tradition'" by I. Shawn McElhinney

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/stickler.html

McElhinney responds to Alfons Cardinal Stickler in his “The Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass”:

Cardinal Stickler wrote:

We'll briefly examine the main differences between the two liturgical reforms as well as what we might term their theological attractiveness.

Firstly, in the light of the Protestant heresy, the Mass of Pius V emphasized the central truth of the Mass as a sacrifice, based on the theological discussions and specific regulations of the Council. The Mass of Paul VI (so-called because the liturgical commission for the reform after Vatican II worked under the ultimate responsibility of the Pope) emphasizes rather the integral part of the Mass, Communion, with the result that the sacrifice is transformed into what could be termed a meal. The great importance given to the readings and to preaching in the new Mass, and even the faculty given to the priest to add private speeches and explications, is another reflection of what can be called an adaptation to the Protestant idea of worship....

McElhinney: How sad that His Eminence appears to be a bit deficient in understanding the ancient duel metaphor understanding of the Mass. To quote from the Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol on the matter:

From the very beginning of the Church there existed an essential rite, distinct from that of the synagogue; a rite which, from the first moment, seems to take the lead amongst all others, of which in a manner it is the center. It consists of the reproduction and reconstruction of Our Lord's last repast, of the Last Supper in the Cenacle.

This rite is found everywhere. We have quoted the texts of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius of Antioch, of Justin, etc. But we could have multiplied our witnesses. A Christian traveler of the third century, Abercius, who had journeyed through the East as well as the West, tells us in a famous inscription:

"My name is Abercius: I am the disciple of a Holy Shepherd Who feeds His flocks of sheep on mountains and on plains; Who has eyes so large that their glance reaches everywhere. He it is Who has taught me the faithful Scriptures. He it is Who sent me to Rome.... I have also seen the plain of Syria and all its towns-- Nisibis on the borders of the Euphrates. Everywhere I went I found brethren. Paul was my companion. Faith led me everywhere; everywhere it served as my food, a fish from the spring, very great and pure, caught by a Holy Virgin; continuously she gave it to eat to her friends; she also has a delicious wine, which she gives with the bread."

This rite, considered as a banquet and a sacrifice, has banished all the other sacrifices. Although the Church borrowed so largely from the Jewish liturgy, she left them their sacrifices. Those who attempt to discover analogies between the rites of paganism and those of the Christians cannot deny that the peaceful and unbloody Sacrifice of the altar has put an end to all sacrifices of blood. That river of blood which flowed through all pagan temples has been stopped by the Sacrifice of the Lamb.

This rite was accomplished with bread and wine. (Certain eccentrics are pointed out, such as the "Aquarians" or "Hydroparastes," who, already prohibitionists, forbade all wine, even at Mass.) Those who partook of it wished to renew the scene in the Cenacle in relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross; and were persuaded that under the species of bread and wine they received the Body and Blood of Christ.

The rite, as has been remarked, presents numerous variants when it is studied according to the testimony of different Churches, and great liberty of interpretation and improvisation still reigns; but the general and essential features are the same. What is called the Eucharist, the fraction, the "anaphora," the eulogy, the synaxis, is always and for all the same rite as that which we call the Mass. [4]

The intention of the liturgical reform was to restore a more fully orbed understanding of the mystery of the Mass. This duel element emphasis had begun to gradually vanish in the ninth and tenth centuries when an over-clericalizing begin to take place. This was when the Church started using non-plural prayer forms, multiplying prayers such as a double confiteor, and emphasizing a near caste system when it came to the priest and the laity. This narrowing of scope coupled with a near-sole emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice started around the time of the heresy of Berengarius (eleventh century). The Protestants in the sixteenth century reacted against this narrowing of perspective and asserted the ancient neglected element of a community meal. In doing this though, they unfortunately denied the sacrificial understanding of the Mass. Trent in response defined the sacrifice of the Mass against these errors. In the spirit of one extreme begetting another extreme, most Catholics since the time of Trent have difficulty seeing the Mass as anything but a sacrifice. (Or seeing any of the liturgical functions being performed by someone other than the priest, other clergy, or altar servers.) In neglecting the fuller scope of understanding the Mass, the underlying concept of the covenant is nearly unknown by most Catholics. Ironically, it took Reformed scholarship to bring this theme to the forefront again in providing the proper understanding of God’s relationship to his people. And how ironic this is since Catholicism proclaims to be the Church and thus (by extension) the Israel of the perfected covenant. Catholicism is interwoven with covenant themes. However, an unbalanced understanding of the Mass makes this paradigm almost undistinguishable at the very core of our faith.

Vatican II and the liturgical reform sought to restore a proper balanced understanding. That there is in many places an extreme tilt to the other extreme should not surprise, as it is human nature to overcompensate to some extent. Achieving a proper balance is the most difficult of all endeavours and most people - Catholic or not - find it easier to either be an extremist or an indifferentist. Neither position requires much effort. It is unfortunate that Cardinal Stickler appears to misunderstand the very Catholic and traditional concept of inculturation.

Inculturation is the secret to the Church’s evangelization of the world once before (and what she will need to do to accomplish this once again). No one denies that there are problems today but the number of people who do not believe in the Real Presence is not as high as secular statistics claim. This is a point that 'Matt1618', Dr. Art Sippo, and this author went over in a full-scale examination of the Mass (in addressing the errors of extreme 'traditionalists'). The problems we face today will be resolved for the most part by the proper implementation of Vatican II, proper catechizing and the reinforcement of discipline. That is the bottom line really.

Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report noted that "in order to explain the rapid and almost total abandonment of the ancient, common liturgical language, we must take into account a fundamental cultural change in Western education" (pg. 123). John Murphy likewise concurred that:

It would seem that the situation in regard to Latin has changed so radically since the time of Trent that the same judgments could hardly be made now as then. What belonged to the educated men of the 16th century (and not only to the clergy) does not even fit into the educational pattern of many of our most educated men today. Latin has become not only a dead language since that time, but an increasingly unknown language, and apparently, not even the authority of the Church has been able to stem this time. The trend of history, it would seem, has proven a force too powerful to overcome. [14]

The subtle undercurrent which permeates the self-styled 'traditionalist' menatlity when it comes to certain elements of the Mass will be examined shortly. But first the statement by the Cardinal that "theological reasons which were stated in both councils for the retention of Latin in the Mass can now be seen to have been justified" needs to be looked at in greater detail. As the General Instructions on the Roman Missal dealt with this topic reasonably well, it will be cited from it to help with establishing the times and circumstances that vary between now and the sixteenth century - circumstances that seemingly are never taken into account by those who are the most zealous promoters of the TM:

The older Missal belongs to the difficult period of attacks against Catholic teaching on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood, and the real and permanent presence of Christ under the eucharistic elements. St. Pius V was therefore especially concerned with preserving the relatively recent developments in the Church's tradition, then unjustly being assailed, and introduced only very slight changes into the sacred rites. In fact, the Roman Missal of 1570 differs very little from the first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully follows the Missal used at the time of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216). Manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided some verbal emendations, but they seldom allowed research into "ancient and approved authors" to extend beyond the examination of a few liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.

Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the "tradition of the Fathers" that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown.

Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered. The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom.

The "Tradition of the Fathers" does not require merely the preservation of what our immediate predecessors have passed on to us. There must also be profound study and understanding of the Church's entire past and of all the ways in which its single faith has been expressed in the quite diverse human and social forms prevailing in Semitic, Greek, and Latin cultures. This broader view shows us how the Holy Spirit endows the people of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the deposit of faith unchanged, even though prayers and rites differ so greatly…

As it bears witness to the Roman Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) and guards the deposit of faith handed down by the later councils, the new Roman Missal in turn marks a major step forward in liturgical tradition. The Fathers of Vatican Council II in reaffirming the dogmatic statements of the Council of Trent were speaking at a far different time in the world's history. They were able therefore to bring forward proposals and measures of a pastoral nature that could not have even been foreseen four centuries ago.

The Council of Trent recognized the great catechetical value of the celebration of Mass, but was unable to bring out all its consequences for the actual life of the Church. Many were pressing for permission to use the vernacular in celebrating the eucharistic sacrifice, but the Council, judging the conditions of that age, felt bound to answer such a request with a reaffirmation of the Church's traditional teaching. This teaching is that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is, first adnd foremost, the action of Christ Himself and therefore the manner in which the faithful take part in the Mass does not affect the efficacy belonging to it. The Council thus stated in firm but measured words: "Although the Mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it did not seem expedient to the Fathers that as a general rule it be celebrated in the vernacular." The Council accordingly anathematized anyone maintaining that "the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the canon and the words of consecration are spoken in a low voice, should be condemned or that the Mass must be celebrated only in the vernacular."

Although the Council of Trent on the one hand prohibited the use of the vernacular in the Mass, nevertheless, on the other, it did direct pastors to substitute appropriate catechesis:

"Lest Christ's flock go hungry. . .the Council commands pastors and others having the care of souls that either personally or through others they frequently give instructions during Mass, especially on Sundays and holydays, on what is read at Mass and that among their instructions they include some explanation of the mystery of this sacrifice." Convened in order to adapt the Church to the contemporary requirements of its apostolic task, Vatican Council II examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the pedagogic and pastoral character of the liturgy. Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that "the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage to the people" and gave permission for its use. The enthusiasm in response to this decision was so great that, under the leadership of the bishops and the Apostolic See, it has resulted in the permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the faithful participate to be in the vernacular for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.

The use of the vernacular in the liturgy may certainly be considered an important means for presenting more clearly the catechesis on the mystery that is part of the celebration itself. Nevertheless, Vatican Council II also ordered the observance of certain directives, prescribed by the Council of Trent but not obeyed everywhere. Among these are the obligatory homily on Sundays and holydays and the permission to interpose some commentary during the sacred rites themselves. [15]

The questions regarding the liturgy go far beyond the mere usage of a language that is for all extensive purposes functionally dead today (and justifying its use as if it was for some reason "traditional" to keep Catholics in a state of ignorance). The above passage of the GIRM outline the doctrinal principles behind the declarations of Trent and they are not applicable in the same manner as most 'traditionalists' casually assume. But that is not the only area that is problematical. There is also the point of cultural imperialism that seems to drive the 'traditionalist' movement when it comes to liturgy. They are not merely content to seek to have access to a liturgy that they love. No they are also insistent on ramming it down the throats of those who do not want it and are arrogant enough to claim that to reject it is to reject "Tradition".

This author has grown to hate the term "traditional Catholic" - even when friends of his who are in communion with Rome use it - primarily for this reason. Many friends who style themselves as "Traditional Catholics" - who in accepting the teachings of Vatican II and its importance while preferring the older liturgy - seem unaware of how much they claim as "tradition" is little more than cultural elements. This was also a point that biographer Roy MacGregor-Hastie pointed out in his book Pope Paul VI about Popes Paul VI and John XXIII as monsignors before they were elevated to the papal chair. In speaking of Church evangelization (in areas of the world where converts were nearly impossible to come by), the following points were made which bear reflection:

[The interest of] Monsignor Montini [Paul VI] in Africa, Asia, and Latin America was first roused in 1947 when the British Labour Party granted India its independence…What had to be avoided was the creation of the impression that the Catholic Church was part and partial of the "alien civilization" superimposed on the native civilization of the former coloniel country. China was a case in point. The Catholic Church, as Montini delightedly pointed out to his collegue Tardini, had made a great mistake there centuries ago, a mistake that cost them perhaps six hundred million converts. A Church "too attached to traditional symbols and practices" had brought missionary activity to a halt in China by insisting on banning "non-Christian observances". The Catholic navigators, Italian and Portuguese traders had won the confidence of successive celestial emperors. Missionaries had infiltrated as far as the capital and had succeeded in converting even members of the royal family. There was a chance that the emperor of the day (cured by a medical missionary of some disease) would be converted and there were hopes that this would be another "Constantine" case - that the emperor would declare China to be officially Catholic, a mass conversion. Unfortunately, an emissary from the Vatican (a Tardini of his day) had arrived in China and was astonished to hear firecrackers being let off during Mass. He had immediately ordered an end to this (there was also suspicions of ancestor worship) and that was also the end of Catholicism in China.

Monsignor Montini, discussing the case of China, pointed out that there was a difference between pagan practices and practices de-paganized. A number of survivals from Europe's pagan past were visible in Catholic ceremonies - the penitent's hood during Holy Week processions in Spain for one - but the survival of pagan practices suggested that Catholicism had been stronger, not weaker than its pagan predecessors. If, in 1949, Mao Tse-Tung had declared the Catholic Church in its entirety persona non gratia, then this was not only because Catholic Italians had been on the side of Japan in the war. To a Nationalist like Mao, the Church must surely be offensive because it stressed too often its European origin in ceremonies which had really nothing to do about faith at all, or at the most were shorthand notes of the dogmas of the faith. What happened in China in 1949, Monsignor Montini said, must not happen elsewhere…

Monsignor Montini was distressed by the prospects for Catholicism, if not Christianity, in South-East Asia as a whole and in Africa…Monsignor Roncalli [John XXIII] had shown himself to be sympathetic to the aspirations of coloniel subjects in France and had gone so far as to point out that it was high time a number of African and Arab cardinals were appointed: there was really no point in having a Chinese Nationalist Cardinal, China having been lost to the Church, if Africa and the rest of Asia, which were still to be saved, were not represented…Pius XII, Tardini, and Ottaviani were not pleased with Monsignor Montini’s meticulous research, nor by his conclusions. [16]

… It is disgraceful that so many souls were probably lost centuries ago all over stupid symbols such as European customs and the dead Latin language rammed down the throats of people to whom Latin language and European customs were as alien to them as their customs were (and are) to those of us of European ancestry and culture. This is the biggest danger of the 'traditionalist' movement and they are too stubbornly ignorant to wise up to these matters and deal with the mission of the Church. That mission is preaching the Gospel and helping people achieve salvation, not promulgating as symbols of a 'tradition' elements that are in no way fundamental to the faith. (And insisting doggedly on their adherence imply because it makes the 'traditionalist' feel better that they are not "scandalized" by seeing Natives in head dresses, eastern dance during the liturgy, or other elements of Third World missionary work.) Remember the words of the Apostle James about the sin of partiality (James 2:1,9. 4:11-13). It is the contention of this author that this sin is present in spades among a lot of self-styled 'traditionalists'.

MRyan Sat May 05, 2012 10:21 am

“There is no partiality with God. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.” (Rom 2:11-13)

“You were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Gal 5:14)

“If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” (Jas 2:8-10)

Lord Jesus, You did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it. The Apostles and early evangelists articulated and documented Your teaching. The Magisterium expresses and promotes Your teaching in written laws meant to guide and instruct the faithful in all aspects of their Christian lives. Send forth Your Spirit that I might continue to ponder Your law in my heart; that it might move me to produce works pleasing to You; and that I might remain obedient to the Magisterium. I ask this in Your Holy Name. Amen.
http://www.catholicchristians.com/CatholicTeaching/allChats/FaithChat_36_FinalLine.pdf

columba Sat May 05, 2012 8:48 pm

Review of Coomaraswamy’s “The Problem of he New Mass” by Father William G. Most

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/NEWMAS.TXT

The Problem of the New Mass

Rama P. Coomaraswamy (Vexilla Regis Cath. Bookstore, 8 Pond Place, Oyster Bay Cave, N.Y. 11771)

1. "The author presumes to decide by private judgment what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament. That is the way Protestants act. It is for the Church and the Church only to decide that. The Church has decided that the New Mass is valid. To attack this shows both disobedience and lack of faith."

There was no change in the form of the sacrament from what it originally was and remains; the original form remains exactly the same and is celebrated alongside the new form.
Neither was there any change in the new form and for the simple reason that it never existed before.. It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.

"In what the author would call "the good old days" his booklet would have been automatically forbidden reading under Canon 1399. Today under a milder law it is still, by general moral principles, sinful to propagate this book, for it can be an occasion of sin for those not capable of answering it."

Fr. Most is arguing from the premise that the new form is actually a re-form of that which preceded it, and if it were the case that it actually was a re-form of an older form then his arguments would be valid. We know now that the old form was never abrogated and so he's based his arguments on a false premise.

2. "It is also guilty of rash judgment. The injunction of Christ: "Judge not" refers not to saying that what is objectively wrong is objectively wrong - it applies to presuming to pronounce on the motives, the interior of the one doing it. That is precisely what this booklet does: it assumes that more than one Pope let a committee deliberately make the Mass invalid."

Even if it were the case that it was negligence as opposed to deliberate malice, the resulting harm would not be any less disasterous. If a form of Mass is questionably valid, or worse, actually invalid, what consolation is that to anyone regardless of the intent by which it came about?

"The evil wish of some does not change the intention of the Pope and Church. And if even an ignorant priest one with deficient seminary training, who does not understand the Mass as a sacrifice, but only as a meal) intends to do what the Church does, that is sufficient for validity."

This presumption is most questionable. A priest must have minimun intent to do what the Church does. He cannot have even this minimum intent if he has lost faith in transubstantiation. How could he intend doing what the Church does if he believes the Church does nothing? He himself would do nothing.

"As to doctrine: I should believe it because of the promises of Christ. And incidentally, He promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. This booklet claims they have prevailed, by destroying the heart of the Church, the Mass. This is gross lack of faith."

I've yet to read the whole booklet but I would think that its author has not claimed that the gates of hell have prevailed aginst the Church, nor would that conclusion need to be considered even if the NO Mass where in fact declared invalid. The NO form is not a universal form and is not an obligatory form throughout the universal Church.

"We are reminded of the words of the Epistle of James (2:10) saying that if someone violates one commandment, he is guilty of all. - The reason is this: He has denied the authority of the lawgiver, and so violates all. Now we might see something a bit parallel here. If a man believes all but one of the teachings of the Church, we ask: Why is it that he believes those he does believe?"

We are also reminded that the charism of invalibilty is in operation when the Pope proclaims some truth of the faith or imposes some discipline requiring the assent of faith from all believers in the Church universally.
How does one then reconcile what is a non-universal discipline in liturgy with a contradiction arising between that discipline and the divine commandments of God, especially the first three.
How does one for instance reconcile the reception of Holy Communion with the sacrilege of trampling underfoot the same most holy sacrament when approaching to receive (one of the main reasons I should add why I refuse to attend the NO)?

"It seems it is not faith - for faith would lead him to accept all, not all but one. Therefore, we wonder if such a person has any faith at all. What seems to be faith is apt to be just old time stubbornness."

And faith in the Real Presence would also lead one to show the utmost external signs of reverence. Therefore how can one say that he believes in the Real Presence when attending that where institutionalized irreverence is not only tolerated but is the natural consequence of a liturgy that does not teach the faith.

"We must obey unless the command is immoral. The Pope of course has not ordered anything immoral even though this author thinks two Popes have ordered or permitted the destruction of the Mass - which would be grossly immoral. Of course it did not happen!). But some U.S. Bishops have done wrong, in ordering religion textbooks for their schools which either do not convey the faith or even contradict it"

Ya Know, I cringe with fear before the knowledge that God is also reading these words as I read them. "But some U.S. Bishops have done wrong, in ordering religion textbooks for their schools which either do not convey the faith or even contradict it." "Done wrong?" What an understatement. In reality they have most likely robbed a generation or two of innocent souls of their salvation which is fine (it would seem)if you don't happen to be one of those souls who were "done wrong."

3. The author says that the claim that there is an Aramaic word behind "all" instead of many is just due to Protestant prejudice by J.Jeremias. This is a lack of scholarship. Jeremias is a fine scholar. But leaving him aside, we should know that there is a Hebrew word, "rabbim," which means the all who are many. If I would be in a room with three persons, I could say all, but could not say many. We first meet this usage not in J. Jeremias but in the prophecy of Isaiah 53. In verse 6: "The Lord laid upon Him the iniquity of us all." But then, referring to the same ones, in verses 11 and 12 we find "rabbim:" "My righteous servant will justify "rabbim"...he bore the sins of "rabbim." Further if one uses a Greek concordance to the New Testament, he finds that absolutely every time St.Paul uses Greek "polloi" as a substantive, he means all, even though "polloi" normally in Greek means many. For example in Romans 5:19: "Just as by the disobedience of the one, the "polloi" were made sinners, so by the obedience of the one man, the "polloi" will be constituted just." St. Paul clearly means original sin - he does not mean only some contract original sin. He means all. The author says we changed to all to mean all are actually saved. Nonsense. It merely means Christ died for all. Aramaic "saggi'in" at least at times has the same sense as Hebrew "rabbim." The Aramaic Targum on Isaiah 53:11 does use "saggi'in." Cf. E. C. Maloney, "Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax," pp. 141-42 (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation 51, 1981).

How many times has this argument been shown false. No matter about the Hebrew word "rabbim" meanig all or many, we know for sure that Christ used the word "many" not to mean all and that the Church has always understood the word "many" as expressing the efficiency of the Holy Sacrifice.

We turn to other canons and only by mighty straining can the author make them look like no sacrifice:

Canon 2: "Let your Spirit come [so it is the work of the Spirit, not of the congregation as author charges] upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us, the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ." So the Real Presence is clearly here....Then after the Consecration: "In memory of his death and resurrection [compare Canon 1: we celebrate the memory of Christ your Son...his passion,his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into glory] we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup [Canon 1: "the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation."]

In Canon 3: We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit [again it is the Spirit that does it, not the congregation] that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ [Real Presence], at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist [so we mean to do what He commanded]." After the consecration: Father calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation [again, much like Canon 1]...we offer you this holy and living sacrifice...see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself [this is the means of redemption, and so is sacrifice]. "...Lord may this sacrifice [the one just mentioned] which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world."

Canon 4: "Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord [Real Presence again]"....After Consecration: Father we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption, we recall Christ's death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension...we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world. Lord look upon the sacrifice which you have given to your Church...Remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice...."

No word at all thus far in any canon about a sacred meal. Many times offering and sacrifice, and what is offered is the body and blood of Christ, changed into that by the Holy Spirit, not by the congregation.

Yep. But the Holy Spirit causes transubstantiation through the actions and words of the priest. In the context of the Novus Ordo it's not "as" apparent that this is the work of the priest alone. Any attempt at co-consecration by the laity can result in invalidity. Probably why this prayer was always done silently by the priest.

5. "The quotes given saying the Church cannot change anything refer only to substantial change--which is to be judged by the Church, not by protestant private judgment. Further, the Church has actually made over the centuries many non substantial changes in forms of sacraments, especially confirmation, penance, anointing."

It's the substantial changes that are worrying.
No one has said that the NO Mass is invalid but that a doubt persists that the magisterium should address if for no other reason than to calm the conscience of the faithful who witness the abuses that this form promotes on a daily basis. How could something so holy produce such unholiness? That's what needs addressing.

Sorry folks for the long post but if Mike would keep his at an acceptable length blah blah blah.

MRyan Sun May 06, 2012 4:56 pm

Council of Trent, Session 21, CHAPTER II:

The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have intimated, when he says; Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God…

The Mass of Pope Pius V: Take and drink ye all of this, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT; THE MYSTERY OF FAITH; WHICH WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. As often as you do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of Me.

The Mass of Pope Paul VI: Take this, all of you, and drink from it, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Former approved ICEL Translation: “ALL” instead of “MANY”.

Ancient Maronite Canon: "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.”

columba wrote
Fr. Most wrote
1. "The author presumes to decide by private judgment what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament. That is the way Protestants act. It is for the Church and the Church only to decide that. The Church has decided that the New Mass is valid. To attack this shows both disobedience and lack of faith."
There was no change in the form of the sacrament from what it originally was and remains; the original form remains exactly the same and is celebrated alongside the new form.
Neither was there any change in the new form and for the simple reason that it never existed before.. It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.

Not only does columba not know what the “original form” was in the first several centuries of the Church, we know for certain that the essence or substantial nature of the forum (its substance) is the same in all approved forms. Columba is objecting to the removal of the “mysterium fidei” from the consecration form as if is an established fact that “There was no change in the form of the sacrament from what it originally was and remains”, when we know the “mysterium fidei” … “was not present in any Mass canon before the fifth century” and “the Eastern Churches did not use "mysterium fidei" [with the exception of the Malabar Rite], thus, “it could not be considered an essential constituent of the sacrament.”

The Catholic Church has never been limited to the Roman rite. It recognizes nine rites, which has its own right and proper way of doing things, including the celebration of the Eucharist, as Atwatter's Catholic Dictionary points out before Vatican II (Latin, Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopic, Malabar, Maronite and Syrian rites):

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.
(http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#IV.%20Is%20%E2%80%9CFor%20All%E2%80%9D%20an%20invalid%20translation%20of%20%E2%80%9CPro%20Vobis%20et%20Pro%20Multis%E2%80%9D?)

Here is a sampling of diverse Eastern forms taken from: "The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the Church of Malabar," 1859; by Father J. M. Neale (Adam Miller, “Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VII Invalid?” Appendix I, pp 108-111). Note that ONLY the Malabar Form (otherwise known as the Syro-Malabar rite celebrated primarily in India) contains "The Mystery of Faith":

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. PETER, HEAD OF THE APOSTLES: The wording is "THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY IS BROKEN AND IS GIVEN FOR THE EXPIATION OF CRIMES, THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND LIFE ETERNAL".

THE ANAPHORA OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES: "FOR THIS IS THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY IS POURED FORTH FOR THE EXPIATION OF SINS AND LIFE ETERNAL".

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JAMES: The wording is "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY IS SHED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS".

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST: "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER.”

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST: The wording is "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; TAKE, DRINK YE ALL OF IT, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS OF YOU AND OF ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL, AND FOR ETERNAL LIFE".

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. XYSTUS, THE POPE OF ROME: "FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH FOR YOU AND MANY IS GIVEN FOR THE EXPIATION OF CRIMES, AND HATH GIVEN TO US THE REMISSION OF ETERNAL LIFE".

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: “THIS IS MY BLOOD WHICH CONFIRMS THE TESTAMENT OF MY DEATH: WHICH FOR YOU IS POURED FORTH, AND FOR MANY IS GIVEN AND DIVIDED, TO THE PROPITIATION OF TRANSGRESSION, THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND LIFE ETERNAL".

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. BASIL: "THIS IS THAT MY BLOOD. WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY IS POURED FORTH AND SPRINKLED, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, AND REMISSION OF SINS, AND FOR LIFE ETERNAL".

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. CYRIL: "THIS IS MY BLOOD WHICH SEALS THE TESTAMENT OF MY DEATH, AND PREPARES YOU AND MANY OF THE FAITHFUL TO ETERNAL LIFE".

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. DIONYSIUS: "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY IS POURED FORTH AND GIVEN FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND LIFE ETERNAL".

The Form for the Byzantine (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom): "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS".

The Form for the Armenian: "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE EXPIATION AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS".

The Form for the Coptic: "FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS".

The Form for the Ethiopic: "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT, WHICH SHALL BE POURED OUT AND OFFERED FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND ETERNAL LIFE OF YOU AND MANY".

The Form for the Chaldean: "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS".

The Form for the Malabar: The form is: "FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS".

In summary, Columba once again takes great liberty with the “facts”, and as usual, gets his facts wrong.

columba Sun May 06, 2012 7:00 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote

Fr. Most wrote
1. "The author presumes to decide by private judgment what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament. That is the way Protestants act. It is for the Church and the Church only to decide that. The Church has decided that the New Mass is valid. To attack this shows both disobedience and lack of faith."

There was no change in the form of the rite from what it originally was and remains; the original form of the rite remains exactly the same and is celebrated alongside the new form of the rite.
Neither was there any change in the new form of the rite and for the simple reason that the new form of the rite never existed before.. It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.

Not only does columba not know what the “original form” was in the first several centuries of the Church, we know for certain that the essence or substantial nature of the forum (its substance) is the same in all approved forms. Columba is objecting to the removal of the “mysterium fidei” from the consecration form as if is an established fact that “There was no change in the form of the sacrament from what it originally was and remains”, when we know the “mysterium fidei” … “was not present in any Mass canon before the fifth century” and “the Eastern Churches did not use "mysterium fidei" [with the exception of the Malabar Rite], thus, “it could not be considered an essential constituent of the sacrament.”

Mike you have read me incorrectly (my fault) in assuming I was talking about the words of consecration when I mentioned "form." I was actually speaking of two forms of the one rite as in two forms of the one Mass. I've corrected that above, highlighted in orange.

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST: "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER.”

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST: The wording is "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; TAKE, DRINK YE ALL OF IT, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS OF YOU AND OF ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL, AND FOR ETERNAL LIFE".

If you notice in the two anaphors that refer to "all," care is taken to signify what the "all" means. The "all" in both cases is referring to the "many" and cannot be mistaken to mean literally all humanity.

MRyan wrote:
In summary, Columba once again takes great liberty with the “facts”, and as usual, gets his facts wrong.

Do you mean that you read the word "all" in the above anaphors as not meaning the redeemed "many?"
And where in the earlier unrevised NO Mass was it ever made apparent in the anaphora itself that the "all" really meant "many?" It is certainly made clear in the above two anaphors.

I have never said that the absence of the "mysterium fidei" interfers with the validity of the sacrament. What I would suggest is that "mysterium fidei" was added for very good reason. The absence of the "mysterium fidei" in all the quoted anaphors above does not detract from the focus of the mystery of faith being none other than that mystery of the Holy Eucharist made present on the altar.
In the NO form however, by moving the "mysterium fidei" outside the anaphora (as opposed to excluding the words altogether) and referring to the "mystery of faith" as being the death, resurrection and second coming of Christ and not His actual presence right here and now in the form of bread and wine, actually alters the Church's understanding of its original meaning.

George Brenner Sun May 06, 2012 8:35 pm

The issue of ALL and Many is behind us. Rejoice and move on. All was valid and Many is the much more faithful rendering of Christ own words as explained in detail by Cardinal Arinze. The use of either word did not effect the miracle of Transubstantiation. This issue is in the past.

I went to the Novus Order Mass at my home parish this morning where my wife and I were married almost forty two years ago. The pastor who is responsible for two parishes, is not in the best of health and is really a good priest. Naturally, every Sabbath is a Holy Day of obligation and yet there are some that would say, believe and teach that the NO is invalid, the priest is invalid, the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle is invalid, the Transubtstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus is invalid, the confessions heard before Mass are invalid and as far as the recent Popes are concerned on a good day some might find it in their hearts to hold hope that they were acceptable for their personal approval and on other days they vary between the recent Popes being an anti Pope, a Heretic or just not up to par as being an acceptable Vicar of Christ. Sure there are major problems during 'Our Time' which need remedy but as Mike says, problems and crisis have always been with us, including the time that Jesus walked the earth right through every century. Without crisis there would be a lot less Saints.
...... and so we all pray for help, truth , perseverance and wisdom to do the will of God on earth as it is in Heaven.

JMJ,

George

columba Mon May 07, 2012 11:49 am

George Brenner wrote:
The issue of ALL and Many is behind us. Rejoice and move on.

Goodness me George! What on earth should we be rejoicing about?
Should we rejoice in the fact that doubt surrounding the validity of the words of consecration have been dealt with and that we can now be certain that the abuses taking place are perpetrated in the sight of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Echarist? Not something I will be rejoicuing over but instead lamenting.

George Brenner Mon May 07, 2012 2:41 pm

Columba said:
Goodness me George! What on earth should we be rejoicing about?
Should we rejoice in the fact that doubt surrounding the validity of the words of consecration have been dealt with and that we can now be certain that the abuses taking place are perpetrated in the sight of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Echarist? Not something I will be rejoicuing over but instead lamenting.

Your post is easy enough to understand. I rejoice in the Eucharist past, present and future and you will lament as to your doubt as to whether the Consecration was even valid. I would lament too if doubted that Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist. I know that Cardinal Arinze does not meet your standards. So when people, much better than my lowly state, have been receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ , 'for unless you eat my Body and drink by Blood , you shall not have life everlasting' , the best you can say is I have my doubts. Run that by Jesus in your prayers once and see how it sounds. If you really feel that Jesus would say back to you , no I have not been present through transubstantion by the Priest, then keep spiritually running.

columba Mon May 07, 2012 8:54 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Columba said:
Goodness me George! What on earth should we be rejoicing about?
Should we rejoice in the fact that doubt surrounding the validity of the words of consecration have been dealt with and that we can now be certain that the abuses taking place are perpetrated in the sight of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Echarist? Not something I will be rejoicuing over but instead lamenting.

Your post is easy enough to understand. I rejoice in the Eucharist past, present and future and you will lament as to your doubt as to whether the Consecration was even valid. I would lament too if doubted that Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist. I know that Cardinal Arinze does not meet your standards. So when people, much better than my lowly state, have been receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ , 'for unless you eat my Body and drink by Blood , you shall not have life everlasting' , the best you can say is I have my doubts. Run that by Jesus in your prayers once and see how it sounds. If you really feel that Jesus would say back to you , no I have not been present through transubstantion by the Priest, then keep spiritually running.

George, you have missed my point completely. I don't know how I can explain it more clearly but I'll try.
I agree and I accept that the new translation constitutes an undoubtedly valid consecration. My lamentation is in the fact that the abuses particular to the Novus Ordo Missae still remain; communion in the hand while standing, women in the sanctuary, uncalled for employment of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, lack of rubrics concerning modesty in the presence of Our Lord, profane music, profane language and last but not least, the priest refusing to offer the Holy Sacrifice Ad Orientem.
All these abuses take place before the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and while the faithful recognize His true presence in one breath, they dishonor HIs real presence in another.
This is an abominable lack of reverence and respect due to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament which no amount of modernist excuses and specious explanations can ever make right. For these reasons alone I will have nothing to do with it, and anyone in their right senses would have nothing to do with.

George Brenner Mon May 07, 2012 9:26 pm

Columba please try to concentrate and focus. The name of this thread is " Pro Multis "

I am responding only to your doubt that Many may have not been valid. Save the other for a different discussion. Once again you said:

Should we rejoice in the fact that doubt surrounding the validity of the words of consecration have been dealt with

I understand you completely. Do you want to explain this doubt to me and most importantly Jesus?

George Brenner Mon May 07, 2012 9:32 pm

Correction, I mean't to say do you doubt that "ALL" was valid ?

columba Mon May 07, 2012 9:55 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Correction, I mean't to say do you doubt that "ALL" was valid ?

Yes.. I have made that clear and it seems that my doubt has been given more credibility by the fact that "for many" has been consigned to the trash can.
Pro Multis is no more, but the other abuses listed earlier still remain. I sincerely hope that my discernment in regards to these will also be considered valid, If so, the only logical consequence would be a return to the Mass of St. Pope Pius V.

George Brenner Tue May 08, 2012 3:58 pm

Columba , let us continue.

Is this last quote by you what you meant to say?

Columba said:

Yes.. I have made that clear and it seems that my doubt has been given more credibility by the fact that "for many" has been consigned to the trash can.

columba Tue May 08, 2012 5:24 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Columba , let us continue.

Is this last quote by you what you meant to say?

Columba said:
Yes.. I have made that clear and it seems that my doubt has been given more credibility by the fact that "for many" has been consigned to the trash can.

Yes it is what I meant to say George.
You asked me if I doubted that "ALL" was valid? I had said many times that I had my doubts concerning the use of the word "ALL."

George Brenner Tue May 08, 2012 6:44 pm

Columba said:

Yes it is what I meant to say George.
You asked me if I doubted that "ALL" was valid? I had said many times that I had my doubts concerning the use of the word "ALL."

So am I accurate in saying that I have no doubts as to the validity of the word 'All' while you have doubts as to whether the word 'All" validly turned the wine into Blood and the Mass may not have been valid in your opinion.

Secondly if the word ' Many" as you say has been consigned to the trash heap, how do you explain that ' Many ' has and is being used in the Latin Mass and is now being used in the Novus Ordo Mass. Are you saying that 'Many' is not in the trash heap after all. Terrible analogy but those are your words.

columba Tue May 08, 2012 7:24 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Secondly if the word ' Many" as you say has been consigned to the trash heap, how do you explain that ' Many ' has and is being used in the Latin Mass and is now being used in the Novus Ordo Mass. Are you saying that 'Many' is not in the trash heap after all. Terrible analogy but those are your words.

Apologies George. The word "many" should have read "All."
I meant to say that ther word "All" has been consigned to ther trash can.
I'm glad you made me aware of that mistake.

George Brenner Tue May 08, 2012 7:31 pm

Columba,

No problem. It has to be well after midnight in Ireland, right? lets resume tomorrow

JMJ,

George

MRyan Wed May 09, 2012 2:35 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Fr. Most wrote
1. "The author presumes to decide by private judgment what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament. That is the way Protestants act. It is for the Church and the Church only to decide that. The Church has decided that the New Mass is valid. To attack this shows both disobedience and lack of faith."
There was no change in the form of the rite from what it originally was and remains; the original form of the rite remains exactly the same and is celebrated alongside the new form of the rite.

Neither was there any change in the new form of the rite and for the simple reason that the new form of the rite never existed before.. It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.

Really? But that’s a strange thing to say when in 1570 Pope St. Pius V declared that what he is imposing is a NEW RITE:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. [Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum, 49]

Well, “It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.” So much for columbian logic.

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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, Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947)

The intentions of Popes Pius V and Pope Paul VI are the same with respect to the reform of the Liturgy; and, with respect to the latter:

The intention of the [conciliar] liturgical reform was to restore a more fully orbed understanding of the mystery of the Mass. This duel element emphasis had begun to gradually vanish in the ninth and tenth centuries when an over-clericalizing begin to take place. This was when the Church started using non-plural prayer forms, multiplying prayers such as a double confiteor, and emphasizing a near caste system when it came to the priest and the laity. This narrowing of scope coupled with a near-sole emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice started around the time of the heresy of Berengarius (eleventh century). The Protestants in the sixteenth century reacted against this narrowing of perspective and asserted the ancient neglected element of a community meal. In doing this though, they unfortunately denied the sacrificial understanding of the Mass. Trent in response defined the sacrifice of the Mass against these errors. In the spirit of one extreme begetting another extreme, most Catholics since the time of Trent have difficulty seeing the Mass as anything but a sacrifice. (Or seeing any of the liturgical functions being performed by someone other than the priest, other clergy, or altar servers.) In neglecting the fuller scope of understanding the Mass, the underlying concept of the covenant is nearly unknown by most Catholics. Ironically, it took Reformed scholarship to bring this theme to the forefront again in providing the proper understanding of God’s relationship to his people. And how ironic this is since Catholicism proclaims to be the Church and thus (by extension) the Israel of the perfected covenant. Catholicism is interwoven with covenant themes. However, an unbalanced understanding of the Mass makes this paradigm almost undistinguishable at the very core of our faith.

Vatican II and the liturgical reform sought to restore a proper balanced understanding. That there is in many places an extreme tilt to the other extreme should not surprise, as it is human nature to overcompensate to some extent. Achieving a proper balance is the most difficult of all endeavours and most people - Catholic or not - find it easier to either be an extremist or an indifferentist. Neither position requires much effort. It is unfortunate that Cardinal Stickler appears to misunderstand the very Catholic and traditional concept of inculturation.

As was also said:

The rite, as has been remarked, presents numerous variants when it is studied according to the testimony of different Churches, and great liberty of interpretation and improvisation still reigns; but the general and essential features are the same. What is called the Eucharist, the fraction, the "anaphora," the eulogy, the synaxis, is always and for all the same rite as that which we call the Mass. (Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol)

In point of fact, the four prayers of the Canon in the Ordinary Form, for example, draw heavily from varying traditions that have always been accepted by the Catholic Church, so they are only “new” in relation to the single Canon of the Extraordinary Rite, but they are certainly “organic”.

And it is precisely because the “great liberty of interpretation and improvisation still reigns” that the latest reforms were implemented to correct such improvisations and the tendency to abuse. This, coupled with the manner in which the New Mass was implemented reflect the true context of Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments relative to a “fabricated” Liturgy, for there is nothing “organic” with such free-wielding interpretations and improvisations that were the bane of a liturgical reform gone wrong. Criticisms abound, and are wholly justified; and Cardinal Ratzinger/BXVI has made the same criticisms, but that does not take away from the legitimacy of the reform envisaged by VCII, and the organic essential elements of the Ordinary Form.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Not only does columba not know what the “original form” was in the first several centuries of the Church, we know for certain that the essence or the substance of the forum is the same in all approved forms. Columba is objecting to the removal of the “mysterium fidei” from the consecration form as if is an established fact that “There was no change in the form of the sacrament from what it originally was and remains”, when we know the “mysterium fidei” … “was not present in any Mass canon before the fifth century” and “the Eastern Churches did not use "mysterium fidei" [with the exception of the Malabar Rite], thus, “it could not be considered an essential constituent of the sacrament.”
Mike you have read me incorrectly (my fault) in assuming I was talking about the words of consecration when I mentioned "form." I was actually speaking of two forms of the one rite as in two forms of the one Mass. I've corrected that above, highlighted in orange.

So, we are to understand that in your response to Fr. Most, who is addressing Protestant type private judgments concerning “what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament”, you simply ignore the substance of his actual arguments and arbitrarily change the subject to “two forms of the one rite as in two forms of the one Mass” -- as if it is not “for the Church and the Church only to decide that”.

Even with this “new” understanding, whatever it is (which has little to do with Fr. Most’s very specific arguments on sacramental forms), the point remains, however, that your comments are factually incorrect, where you say:

There was no change in the form of the rite from what it originally was and remains; the original form of the rite remains exactly the same and is celebrated alongside the new form of the rite.

The “form of the rite” of the reformed Mass of Pope Pius V has been “changed” numerous times, and so it does not remain “exactly the same … from what it originally was”.

It is also factually incorrect, as we just went over, to say:

Neither was there any change in the new form of the rite and for the simple reason that the new form of the rite never existed before.. It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.

It is true that it is a new form of the Roman Rite, but is NOT true that this form “has no link with anything gone before”:

The Pauline Rite actually has more things in common with the pre-fifth century Masses than the Tridentine Rite does but at the same time it employs the bulk of its structure from the post fifth century restructurings much as its older Tridentine counterpart does. The Pauline Rite has three readings, communion under both species, and the rite is simplified in the tradition of the "plain" Roman liturgy of the first millennium. These are traits absent from the Tridentine Rite of Mass. There is also often no tabernacle on the altar, the words of Consecration are taken from the Gospels almost literally, there are a multiplicity of Eucharistic Prayers, and there is the Responsorial Psalm (as spoken of by Sts. Augustine and Leo the Great). Also, the Epiklesis has been restored, the petitions of the faithful before the Offertory have been restored: further ancient features that are absent from the Tridentine Mass.

Finally, many of the embellishments added in later centuries have been removed (or reduced). The language of the liturgy is in the ancient plural form, the canon is pronounced in an audible voice, the laity are active in the celebration of Mass, and there is a degree of fluidity to the rite while still maintaining a basic structural form. These are all features prevalent to the "pristine norm" of the early liturgies and they are also part of the Pauline Rite of Mass today. This does not mean that the Revised Missal is perfect or could not be better conformed to the guidelines of the governing Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. However, what is there is in its elements an organic development out of the existing tradition even if the methodology of the reform left a bit to be desired.

To sum up the previous examination, the Pauline Rite is neither illicit nor is it a sacrilege. Instead, it is a valid rite of Mass determined by the only authority competent to make this determination: the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The self-styled 'traditionalists' who say differently … are woefully in error on every significant point. (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise5.html)

Sorry, columba, but your “facts” are still wrong.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST: "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER.”

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST: The wording is "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; TAKE, DRINK YE ALL OF IT, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS OF YOU AND OF ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL, AND FOR ETERNAL LIFE".
If you notice in the two anaphors that refer to "all," care is taken to signify what the "all" means. The "all" in both cases is referring to the "many" and cannot be mistaken to mean literally all humanity.

Yes, they do tell us how “all” is understood, just as care is taken by the Church to tell us how “all” is understood both in the former ICEL version and in the Ancient Maronite Canon which say: "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.”

She also tells us how the words are to be understood when neither “for many” nor “for all” have been used in early Liturgies.

You seem to want to suggest that unless the form explicitly and univocally signifies for whom the “Chalice of My Blood” is efficacious (“for you and the many”), it is most likely invalid or at least “doubtful”. You ignore the FACT that this is not true, and never has been; for it is more correct to say that the form must signify the effect of the sacrament (its purpose; its grace, or what it does), while the Church provides the signification for the same, as she understands it.

This is why there is no question of invalidity with the following liturgies: “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.”

You have a problem, columba¸ since not only is “for many” not used in the preceding forms, “for you” does not explicitly and univocally refer to “you and the many”; and, since Judas is one of the “you” (the many; the faithful, etc.) being addressed directly by our Lord; is our Lord referring to the sufficiency, or to the fruit of the Sacrament?

You guessed, it, the Church supplies the meaning/signification to her sacramental forms, and no one else. The Pope cannot change the substance of the sacrament – de fide, which is why the only people who accuse the Pope of changing the substance of the form of Eucharist are sedevacantists, who at least “follow where the truth leads them”, even if they are too smart by half, especially in sacramental theology.

So what is the real reason for your objection to “for all” when it has been proven time and again that the Church provides the meaning/signification to her sacramental forms, and no one else, and that “for all” and/or the absence of “for many” does not change the substance or signification of the sacrament? That you “personally” believe that “for all” renders the form doubtful only means that you also consider the Ancient Maronite form (“for all”), as well as the forms of the Mass of St. Hippolytus, the Catholic Ethiopian Rite and the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites “doubtful”, for the last three contain neither “for many” nor “for all”, but only “for you”, which must be understood as the Church understands it.

The fact that you believe you have greater authority than the Church in this matter is the real kicker; but then again, you are the arbiter of faith and tradition, after all, and the Pope simply cannot compete with you.

Your deficiency in sacramental theology and understanding of the Church’s authority over her own rites are the only things “doubtful”.

Mac Wed May 09, 2012 5:18 pm

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Fr. Most wrote
1. "The author presumes to decide by private judgment what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament. That is the way Protestants act. It is for the Church and the Church only to decide that. The Church has decided that the New Mass is valid. To attack this shows both disobedience and lack of faith."
There was no change in the form of the rite from what it originally was and remains; the original form of the rite remains exactly the same and is celebrated alongside the new form of the rite.

Neither was there any change in the new form of the rite and for the simple reason that the new form of the rite never existed before.. It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.
Really? But that’s a strange thing to say when in 1570 Pope St. Pius V declared that what he is imposing is a NEW RITE:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. [Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum, 49]
Well, “It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.” So much for columbian logic.

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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, Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947)
The intentions of Popes Pius V and Pope Paul VI are the same with respect to the reform of the Liturgy; and, with respect to the latter:

The intention of the [conciliar] liturgical reform was to restore a more fully orbed understanding of the mystery of the Mass. This duel element emphasis had begun to gradually vanish in the ninth and tenth centuries when an over-clericalizing begin to take place. This was when the Church started using non-plural prayer forms, multiplying prayers such as a double confiteor, and emphasizing a near caste system when it came to the priest and the laity. This narrowing of scope coupled with a near-sole emphasis on the Mass as a sacrifice started around the time of the heresy of Berengarius (eleventh century). The Protestants in the sixteenth century reacted against this narrowing of perspective and asserted the ancient neglected element of a community meal. In doing this though, they unfortunately denied the sacrificial understanding of the Mass. Trent in response defined the sacrifice of the Mass against these errors. In the spirit of one extreme begetting another extreme, most Catholics since the time of Trent have difficulty seeing the Mass as anything but a sacrifice. (Or seeing any of the liturgical functions being performed by someone other than the priest, other clergy, or altar servers.) In neglecting the fuller scope of understanding the Mass, the underlying concept of the covenant is nearly unknown by most Catholics. Ironically, it took Reformed scholarship to bring this theme to the forefront again in providing the proper understanding of God’s relationship to his people. And how ironic this is since Catholicism proclaims to be the Church and thus (by extension) the Israel of the perfected covenant. Catholicism is interwoven with covenant themes. However, an unbalanced understanding of the Mass makes this paradigm almost undistinguishable at the very core of our faith.

Vatican II and the liturgical reform sought to restore a proper balanced understanding. That there is in many places an extreme tilt to the other extreme should not surprise, as it is human nature to overcompensate to some extent. Achieving a proper balance is the most difficult of all endeavours and most people - Catholic or not - find it easier to either be an extremist or an indifferentist. Neither position requires much effort. It is unfortunate that Cardinal Stickler appears to misunderstand the very Catholic and traditional concept of inculturation.
As was also said:

The rite, as has been remarked, presents numerous variants when it is studied according to the testimony of different Churches, and great liberty of interpretation and improvisation still reigns; but the general and essential features are the same. What is called the Eucharist, the fraction, the "anaphora," the eulogy, the synaxis, is always and for all the same rite as that which we call the Mass. (Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol)
In point of fact, the four prayers of the Canon in the Ordinary Form, for example, draw heavily from varying traditions that have always been accepted by the Catholic Church, so they are only “new” in relation to the single Canon of the Extraordinary Rite, but they are certainly “organic”.

And it is precisely because the “great liberty of interpretation and improvisation still reigns” that the latest reforms were implemented to correct such improvisations and the tendency to abuse. This, coupled with the manner in which the New Mass was implemented reflect the true context of Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments relative to a “fabricated” Liturgy, for there is nothing “organic” with such free-wielding interpretations and improvisations that were the bane of a liturgical reform gone wrong. Criticisms abound, and are wholly justified; and Cardinal Ratzinger/BXVI has made the same criticisms, but that does not take away from the legitimacy of the reform envisaged by VCII, and the organic essential elements of the Ordinary Form.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Not only does columba not know what the “original form” was in the first several centuries of the Church, we know for certain that the essence or the substance of the forum is the same in all approved forms. Columba is objecting to the removal of the “mysterium fidei” from the consecration form as if is an established fact that “There was no change in the form of the sacrament from what it originally was and remains”, when we know the “mysterium fidei” … “was not present in any Mass canon before the fifth century” and “the Eastern Churches did not use "mysterium fidei" [with the exception of the Malabar Rite], thus, “it could not be considered an essential constituent of the sacrament.”
Mike you have read me incorrectly (my fault) in assuming I was talking about the words of consecration when I mentioned "form." I was actually speaking of two forms of the one rite as in two forms of the one Mass. I've corrected that above, highlighted in orange.
So, we are to understand that in your response to Fr. Most, who is addressing Protestant type private judgments concerning “what is or is not a substantial change in the form of a sacrament”, you simply ignore the substance of his actual arguments and arbitrarily change the subject to “two forms of the one rite as in two forms of the one Mass” -- as if it is not “for the Church and the Church only to decide that”.

Even with this “new” understanding, whatever it is (which has little to do with Fr. Most’s very specific arguments on sacramental forms), the point remains, however, that your comments are factually incorrect, where you say:

There was no change in the form of the rite from what it originally was and remains; the original form of the rite remains exactly the same and is celebrated alongside the new form of the rite.
The “form of the rite” of the reformed Mass of Pope Pius V has been “changed” numerous times, and so it does not remain “exactly the same … from what it originally was”.

It is also factually incorrect, as we just went over, to say:

Neither was there any change in the new form of the rite and for the simple reason that the new form of the rite never existed before.. It's NEW. .. and because it's new it has no link with anything gone before.

It is true that it is a new form of the Roman Rite, but is NOT true that this form “has no link with anything gone before”:

The Pauline Rite actually has more things in common with the pre-fifth century Masses than the Tridentine Rite does but at the same time it employs the bulk of its structure from the post fifth century restructurings much as its older Tridentine counterpart does. The Pauline Rite has three readings, communion under both species, and the rite is simplified in the tradition of the "plain" Roman liturgy of the first millennium. These are traits absent from the Tridentine Rite of Mass. There is also often no tabernacle on the altar, the words of Consecration are taken from the Gospels almost literally, there are a multiplicity of Eucharistic Prayers, and there is the Responsorial Psalm (as spoken of by Sts. Augustine and Leo the Great). Also, the Epiklesis has been restored, the petitions of the faithful before the Offertory have been restored: further ancient features that are absent from the Tridentine Mass.

Finally, many of the embellishments added in later centuries have been removed (or reduced). The language of the liturgy is in the ancient plural form, the canon is pronounced in an audible voice, the laity are active in the celebration of Mass, and there is a degree of fluidity to the rite while still maintaining a basic structural form. These are all features prevalent to the "pristine norm" of the early liturgies and they are also part of the Pauline Rite of Mass today. This does not mean that the Revised Missal is perfect or could not be better conformed to the guidelines of the governing Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. However, what is there is in its elements an organic development out of the existing tradition even if the methodology of the reform left a bit to be desired.

To sum up the previous examination, the Pauline Rite is neither illicit nor is it a sacrilege. Instead, it is a valid rite of Mass determined by the only authority competent to make this determination: the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The self-styled 'traditionalists' who say differently … are woefully in error on every significant point. (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise5.html)
Sorry, columba, but your “facts” are still wrong.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST: "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER.”

THE ANAPHORA OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST: The wording is "THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; TAKE, DRINK YE ALL OF IT, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS OF YOU AND OF ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL, AND FOR ETERNAL LIFE".
If you notice in the two anaphors that refer to "all," care is taken to signify what the "all" means. The "all" in both cases is referring to the "many" and cannot be mistaken to mean literally all humanity.
Yes, they do tell us how “all” is understood, just as care is taken by the Church to tell us how “all” is understood both in the former ICEL version and in the Ancient Maronite Canon which say: "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.”

She also tells us how the words are to be understood when neither “for many” nor “for all” have been used in early Liturgies.

You seem to want to suggest that unless the form explicitly and univocally signifies for whom the “Chalice of My Blood” is efficacious (“for you and the many”), it is most likely invalid or at least “doubtful”. You ignore the FACT that this is not true, and never has been; for it is more correct to say that the form must signify the effect of the sacrament (its purpose; its grace, or what it does), while the Church provides the signification for the same, as she understands it.

This is why there is no question of invalidity with the following liturgies: “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.”

You have a problem, columba¸ since not only is “for many” not used in the preceding forms, “for you” does not explicitly and univocally refer to “you and the many”; and, since Judas is one of the “you” (the many; the faithful, etc.) being addressed directly by our Lord; is our Lord referring to the sufficiency, or to the fruit of the Sacrament?

You guessed, it, the Church supplies the meaning/signification to her sacramental forms, and no one else. The Pope cannot change the substance of the sacrament – de fide, which is why the only people who accuse the Pope of changing the substance of the form of Eucharist are sedevacantists, who at least “follow where the truth leads them”, even if they are too smart by half, especially in sacramental theology.

So what is the real reason for your objection to “for all” when it has been proven time and again that the Church provides the meaning/signification to her sacramental forms, and no one else, and that “for all” and/or the absence of “for many” does not change the substance or signification of the sacrament? That you “personally” believe that “for all” renders the form doubtful only means that you also consider the Ancient Maronite form (“for all”), as well as the forms of the Mass of St. Hippolytus, the Catholic Ethiopian Rite and the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites “doubtful”, for the last three contain neither “for many” nor “for all”, but only “for you”, which must be understood as the Church understands it.

The fact that you believe you have greater authority than the Church in this matter is the real kicker; but then again, you are the arbiter of faith and tradition, after all, and the Pope simply cannot compete with you.

Your deficiency in sacramental theology and understanding of the Church’s authority over her own rites are the only things “doubtful”.

MRyan:

I would only like to make a few observations rather than enter fully into this question.

1) Patrick Omlor wrote his thesis on this subject in 1967 after the ICEL first introduced the corrupted translation. The reason given by the ICEL was twofold: a) They claimed incorrectly that Jesus intended to use the word "all" but there was no Aramaic word for "all" and therefore He used the word "many," and b) they claimed that the reality of the sacrament is the sufficiency of the sacrifice and not the efficacy of the sacrifice that was traditionally held.

Every reply to this question since has been a response to Omlor. Fr. Most was the first and his exchanges with Omlor were included in later editions in the early 1970s. The problem with Fr. Most's argument is that he does not believe, as Omlor affirms, that the Reality of the sacrament must be signified in the sacramental form. Since Anglican order were declared to be invalid for this very reason, Fr. Most fails to address the primary question in the argument.

Fr. Brian Harrison's reply to Omlor, although I think it is deficient, at least recognizes the problem that the reality of the sacrament must by signified in the form and he structures his reply in this context.

2) The quote from Mediator Dei that, " Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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." The term, "new rites," in the context of the encyclical is used in a very restricted sense. Pope Pius XII gives explicit examples of what he means by "new rites," such as, adding new feasts in the sanctorial cycle.

3) The words, Mysterium Fidei, are present in the form of consecration in the Roman rite from the oldest historical examples. It is presumed by many, even Adrian Fortescue's, that it was added to the sacramental form at some later date but that cannot be proven. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states that the words are of Divine Tradition and that its use in the form of the sacrament is of Apostolic Tradition.

4) The real reason I am posting this reply is because the claim that an anaphora in the Marionite rite used the word "all" in an unrestricted sense in the sacramental form is not true. The only source for this claim that I know of is Adam Miller who probably got it from Michael Malone who took it from an unreliable source. If you have another authority for this claim I would like to know about it.

If you are interested in what I discovered, I still have detailed notes and exchanges of letters from some excellent authorities on the Marionite liturgy on this question when I first heard the claim about 15 years ago.

Mac

MRyan Thu May 10, 2012 3:13 pm

Mac wrote:
MRyan:

I would only like to make a few observations rather than enter fully into this question.

Hi Mac,

If what follows is just “a few observations”, I’d hate to see you “fully” engaged. Very Happy

Mac wrote:
1) Patrick Omlor wrote his thesis on this subject in 1967 after the ICEL first introduced the corrupted translation. The reason given by the ICEL was twofold: a) They claimed incorrectly that Jesus intended to use the word "all" but there was no Aramaic word for "all" and therefore He used the word "many," and b) they claimed that the reality of the sacrament is the sufficiency of the sacrifice and not the efficacy of the sacrifice that was traditionally held.

The Church addressed this issue as early as 1970 when the question came to the attention of the Holy See. Pope Paul VI confirmed that “The variant involved [“for all”] is fully justified”; that the variant is a legitimate translation and that “nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation”. Finally, it also said “The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.”

The only authority we need to be concerned with when it comes to the ICEL translation and valid sacramental forms is the Holy Mother Church. In January of 1974 she settled the matter with her Declaration on the meaning of translations of sacramental formulae S.C.D.F., insauratio Liturgica, which declared that when the Church “is satisfied that it [the vernacular translation] expresses the meaning, intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.”

The original Latin text says “for many”, and that is how “for all” is to be understood (e.g., “the all who are many”, “TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER”, “ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL”; or for all of those for whom the sacrament is efficacious); so all of this “debate” about the “real meaning of “for all” vis a vis sufficiency versus efficacy is all for naught – “for all” does indeed signify the “Reality of the sacrament”; the Church declared it so when she settled this issue over 38 years ago (and it is now a mute point).

Mac wrote:
Every reply to this question since has been a response to Omlor. Fr. Most was the first and his exchanges with Omlor were included in later editions in the early 1970s. The problem with Fr. Most's argument is that he does not believe, as Omlor affirms, that the Reality of the sacrament must be signified in the sacramental form. Since Anglican order were declared to be invalid for this very reason, Fr. Most fails to address the primary question in the argument.

Fr. Brian Harrison's reply to Omlor, although I think it is deficient, at least recognizes the problem that the reality of the sacrament must by signified in the form and he structures his reply in this context.

And every reply to this question has been a response to a false argument.

Patrick Omlor is not the Church, he is not “the” expert in sacramental theology or in the laws and rights of the Church governing sacramental forms; and he is not the only one who questioned or even denied the sufficiency (efficacy) of “for all”, but his work is indeed the “bible” for those who make the same accusation or harbor the same doubts. And when his alleged proofs fail (and they have), so goes the entire “invalid form” movement. If Mr. Omlor is the quasi-official spokesperson for the “invalid form” movement, then the Church replied at least indirectly to Mr. Omlor, and her answer is authoritative and final (Rome has spoken).

In speaking of the traditional sacramental form of the Latin Church, Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence (1439), declared in Exultate Deo (On the Eucharist), “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of the sacrament, that is, the union of the people with Christ.” But he did not mean by this that “this” traditional form of the Latin Rite is the only form that can signify the essential effect of the sacrament, or that the same signification cannot be realized without “for all” and even without “for many”; or that “for all” cannot provide the same signification as the traditional Latin Form.

In 1439 there were many more approved local Liturgical rites (both East and West) than there were after the promulgation of Quo Primum, whose forms, as we have already demonstrated, did not necessarily include “for many”. Were these approved forms any less “fitting … to signify the effect of the sacrament, that is, the union of the people with Christ”?

Whatever you think is “deficient” in Fr. Harrison’s reply, your argument presupposes that “for all” does not and cannot signify the “Reality of the sacrament” in “the sacramental form”, and this is simply false. Both “for all” and “for many” signify both the sufficiency and the efficacy of the sacrament; for, as the Church attests, the Church supplies and infallibly guarantees its proper signification. Furthermore, if “for all” does not and cannot signify the efficacy of the Sacrament, then the following approved Anaphoras are invalid:

Ancient Maronite Canon: "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.”

The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist: "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER.”

Tell us, Mac, how does “THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER” explicitly signify “the many” of the Mystical Body who will benefit from the grace of sacrament, when Protestants and other non-Catholics who drink of the Cup “Believe in Him for ever and ever”, and also believe “THIS [“My Blood”] IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS?

Columba tells us that “TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER” explicitly signifies “the many” of the Mystical Body for whom the sacrament is efficacious. Really? Univocally? Can it not be said that the form signifies both sufficiency and efficacy, with the Church guaranteeing that it signifies what it effects (it efficacy … while recognizing “the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid”?

What the preceding form demonstrates is the principle of supplied Catholic understanding – which is supplied by the Church and which guarantees that the form signifies its essential effect (the grace) of the sacrament.

As Miller points out, in rebutting the arguments Mr. Omlor, on page 240 of Omlor’s “The Robber Church”:

He defends “unto” despite the fact that “unto” [THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS] has other meanings which he even admits (see his footnote # 13 from this section in “Robber Church”). Therefore, “necessary signification” of words alone is not sufficient, but rather the supplied Catholic understanding provides proper signification. This is no different than what is required for the words “for all”. Here we have a self-contradiction within the structure of Mr. Omlor’s arguments. He applies the principle of supplied Catholic understanding in his arguments for “unto,” yet he allows no consideration to the words of the new form”. (Miller, p. 89)

If we follow Mr. Omlor’s arguments (as it appears you do), the following ancient forms are invalid:

Eucharistic Prayer of the ancient St. Hippolytus: “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, you perform my memorial.”

Here are a couple of Old Liturgies finds of recent history of Egyptian liturgies. The Sacramentary of Serapion, written about 353-356 AD by Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, a colleague of both St. Athanasius, and of St. Anthony gives us an ancient liturgical text, and following that a Deir Balizeh manuscript that goes back to the third century:

We have offered also the cup, the likeness of the blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his disciples, ‘Take ye, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is being shed for you for remission of sins.’”

”Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had blessed it and had drunk, he gave it to them saying, Take, drink all of it. This is my blood which is being shed for you unto remission of sins.”

The following Oriental Liturgies in use today (and also way before Vatican II) have the following consecrations, the Catholic Ethiopian Rite and the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites:

“And likewise also the cup giving thanks, he blessed it, and hallowed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said unto them, Take, drink, this is my blood (pointing and bowing profoundly), which is shed for you for the remission of sins.”

Take, drink this cup: my blood it is, which is shed for you for the remission of sin.”

Whitehead and Likoudis in the same book give us further points:

A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form of the consecration are not to be found.

Scholars studying the Eastern rites can point to many anaphoras, or Eucharistic prayers, which do not include the “for many.” The “For many” is included in the contemporary liturgy of almost all of the Eastern rites or churches today (except the Ethiopian); but the fact that it has not always and everywhere been included in rites whose validity the Catholic Church has never questioned or doubted, amply demonstrates that it is not essential for validity. And whether it is essential has been precisely the question we are concerned with there. [10] (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html)

Mr. Omlor said that “for all” denotes only sufficiency, or, said another way, “the new form fails to signify (and even signifies falsely) the Res Sacramenti (i.e, the union of the faithful with the Mystical Body of Christ).” But he has failed to prove that this is necessarily so, while it has been proven that “the new form, as the Church uses and understands the words, does signify properly.” (Miller, pg. 93)

So it is simply not true to say that “Fr. Most ... does not believe, as Omlor affirms, that the Reality of the sacrament must be signified in the sacramental form”, because he does. The “problem” is in having the correct understanding of “necessary signification”; and understanding that the overriding principle that governs all such understanding is that proper signification which is supplied by the Church. Fr. Most simply does not believe that this signification must explicitly (without any other possible meaning) stand on its own as clearly and univocally signifying “the union of the faithful with the Mystical Body of Christ”; or that “for many” are the not the only words that can supply the necessary signification … and he is absolutely correct.

Mac, I’m going to address Anglican Orders is a separate post; it’s very important to this subject and deserves some additional attention, and I’m glad you brought it up.

Mac wrote:
2) The quote from Mediator Dei that, "Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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." The term, "new rites," in the context of the encyclical is used in a very restricted sense. Pope Pius XII gives explicit examples of what he means by "new rites," such as, adding new feasts in the sanctorial cycle.

Really? So when Pope Pius V introduced a “new rite” in 1570 by formally declaring “This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution …”, he was not actually approving a newly reformed rite for the Latin Church, but was codifying certain “external features of the sacred liturgy” (Mater Dei, #56) that already existed in the same Rite? Perhaps Pope Pius V “erred” when formally declaring that he established a “new rite”?

Furthermore, Pope Pius XII’s words are quite clear when he says "Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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", where “any practice touching the worship of God” includes the introduction and approval of “new rites” in the form of the sacred Liturgy.

And, “the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God” includes the “power” the “Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys” “as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist”; it’s “substance being untouched, it [the Church] may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.” (Session 21, The Council of Trent).

Here is the actual “context” of the subject passage in Mediator Dei:

16. Thus we observe that when God institutes the Old Law, He makes provision besides for sacred rites, and determines in exact detail the rules to be observed by His people in rendering Him the worship He ordains. To this end He established various kinds of sacrifice and designated the ceremonies with which they were to be offered to Him…

21. Liturgical practice begins with the very founding of the Church. The first Christians, in fact, "were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers." Whenever their pastors can summon a little group of the faithful together, they set up an altar on which they proceed to offer the sacrifice, and around which are ranged all the other rites appropriate for the saving of souls and for the honor due to God. Among these latter rites, the first place is reserved for the sacraments, namely, the seven principal founts of salvation…

22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it." Here then is a better and more suitable way to raise the heart to God. Thenceforth the priesthood of Jesus Christ is a living and continuous reality through all the ages to the end of time, since the liturgy is nothing more nor less than the exercise of this priestly function.

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow – keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times…
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.

Mac, you are straining at gnats (missing the point); and even the technical point you are straining at is wrong, for it is far too restrictive in meaning.

Mac wrote:
3) The words, Mysterium Fidei, are present in the form of consecration in the Roman rite from the oldest historical examples. It is presumed by many, even Adrian Fortescue's, that it was added to the sacramental form at some later date but that cannot be proven. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states that the words are of Divine Tradition and that its use in the form of the sacrament is of Apostolic Tradition.

Sorry Mac, to the first part, this is all conjecture, and, as you already know, there are various schools of thought on this. Furthermore, you may have taken the Catechism of Trent out of context. Here is what it actually says:

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following 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. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but 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 found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

“Holy tradition” does not necessarily mean “from Apostolic tradition” in the sense that the any of the Apostles “subjoined” these words (as the Catechism also says) to any individual form that would make it binding on all other forms.

The point is this specific Apostolic tradition is not present in any of the Gospel accounts, or the narrative of St. Paul who received his form directly from our Lord. So the Holy Tradition for the “mystery of faith” must have transpired some time afterward, but it was not universal among the various local Churches and rites, which obviously enjoyed a diversity of forms while maintaining that which is essential to a proper signification (this is proven).

It is also interesting that on page 226 (Tan edition) the Catechism also states that:

The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.

In other words, the mystery of faith, while it does not exclude the reality, actually signifies something other than the essential signification of the sacrament (a matter of faith), and cannot for that very reason be essential to a valid form (as the numerous Eastern Anaphoras so attest).

Mac wrote:
4) The real reason I am posting this reply is because the claim that an anaphora in the Marionite rite used the word "all" in an unrestricted sense in the sacramental form is not true. The only source for this claim that I know of is Adam Miller who probably got it from Michael Malone who took it from an unreliable source. If you have another authority for this claim I would like to know about it.

If you are interested in what I discovered, I still have detailed notes and exchanges of letters from some excellent authorities on the Marionite liturgy on this question when I first heard the claim about 15 years ago.

Why do you presume to allege that anyone has said that the “anaphora in the Marionite rite used the word ‘all’ in an unrestricted sense in the sacramental form”, as if by signifying its sufficiency it cannot and does not also signify its efficacy (its more restrictive sense)?

Regarding the “legitimate translation” of “for all”, the Church declared “The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.”

I’m surprised that you would say “The only source for this claim that I know of is Adam Miller who probably got it from Michael Malone who took it from an unreliable source”; for Adam Miller’s source is not Mike Malone, but (with respect to the Maronite form) two legitimate sources he identifies by name:

Maybe most damaging to the anti-"for all" advocates is the fact that the clause "for all" was used for a number of centuries in one of the old Maronite Canons (they call it the "Anaphoras"). 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. I am not talking about Modern English translations here. The vernacular has never been used in a Maronite Consecration, but always the Aramaic (also called Syriac). The translation was from Latin into Syriac/Aramaic. Their vernacular being, of course, Arabic (in which the REST of the Mass is said). The updated ("Novus Ordo") translations into the world's vernaculars still has its Consecrations in Syriac/Aramaic. Mr. Omlor, though dealing with an English translation of the Maronite Rite (pp. 160-162), conveniently does not address this fact which refutes his entire argument. (pp. 16-17)

I challenged the “doubting” members of this forum who wished to challenge the authenticity of these sources to contact these sources directly.

To date, no one has taken up the offer; however, since you did not seem to be aware of these sources, and you’re investigation began some 15 years ago, I’m sure you can verify the authenticity of these same sources.

All you have to do is provide the proof that these sources are “unreliable”, and that no such anaphora actually exists in the “old Maronite liturgical books” of Fr. Saad, and that Chorbishop Hector Doueihi (Eparchial Liturgist) was mistaken when he confirmed: "The translation of the old Latin texts said: 'For All.'"

Of course, you will also have to prove the “unreliability” of all of the other documented anaphora’s which disprove Omlor’s (and your) claims.

Let me know how that goes.

It is also interesting that you would suggest that Mike Malone’s source is “unreliable”. Let’s see what Malone actually said (if this is what you are referring to) in his email to John Loughnan (circa 2002):

In fact, this translation, although Scripturally inaccurate, may well be considered an approximation of the actual words of Consecration as given to us by the Evangelist St. Luke: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you" (22:20). The final word of this formula (you) is in the plural, and might more accurately be translated "for you all" (especially if you are from San Antonio, Texas!) ~ precisely as St. Jerome rendered it in his Vulgate, the solitary translation of Holy Writ ever authorized by the Catholic Church in her entire history. Nevertheless, the best codices of Scripture demonstrate that it is not the formulary Our Lord Jesus Christ actually recited at the Last Supper, despite the fact that it clearly suffices for a valid confection of the Sacrament according to the most common and traditional theology, including that of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, Q.78, Art 2, 4). The prolific St. Alphonsus Maria observes that there was once even a Consecration of the Host in the ancient Catholic Coptic Mass ~ brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Egypt ~ which rendered the words of the transubstantiation of the host: "This is the Body"(!) It seems, therefore, that the Catholic Church has always supplied the proper understanding of the various thoughts expressed in our poor human idiom, even in her most sacrosanct ceremony. As the ancient dictum puts it: "Ecclesia Supplicet" ~ The Church supplies. Not even the venerable Tridentine Rite, codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, is capable of escaping this judgment, considering that its own Catechism was called upon to explain, at length and in detail, why its Mass continues to call "bread" what has already been transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ. In the liturgies of virtually every Rite, therefore, a genuinely Catholic understanding must necessarily be supplied in certain instances, in order that misconstructions be curtailed and any affected ambiguity be overcome. [http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html]

Hmmm. “unreliable” source? Which one? St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori who “observes that there was once even a Consecration of the Host in the ancient Catholic Coptic Mass ~ brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Egypt ~ which rendered the words of the transubstantiation of the host: ‘This is the Body’(!)”?

Aquinas? St. Jerome? "[T]he best codices”?

Also, Mike Malone nowhere makes reference to the Maronite anaphora cited by Miller, and does not cite even the same anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist that Miller cites (“OF ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL”), which is taken from "The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the Church of Malabar," 1859; by Father J. M. Neale.”

So that’s at least three independent sources cited by Adam Miller, none of whom include Mike Malone, whose name does not appear in the Bibliography of Miler's "Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid?

It appears you're shooting in the dark, here, Mac; neither does it appear that you read Miller's book.

George Brenner Thu May 10, 2012 4:02 pm

Columba,

So once again I start by saying "ALL" was completely and spiritually not only valid but of the highest Holiness as part of the Transubstantiation. Why must you continue to dwell on this. All is not used anymore. You can not even accept two simple facts that "ALL" was completely within the teaching authority of the Church to use and secondly "ALL" is now all gone.

I could be more empathetic to your beliefs or stance on some of the symptoms, causes , practices, teachings or lack of, the abuses and results that we call the crisis of faith over the last half century, if only I considered you Catholic. I think your first reaction to this statement might be one of anger but after the reflection you might at least see part or all of my point. But hang on to the anger for just a moment. We all, myself included go where the wind takes us in our posts and can switch directions as the topics beg for replies. I guess such is the nature of a forum. You made a good attempt lately to have us stay focused one one thing at a time but we all got tied up in related tangents or sub topics. No ones fault!

So specifically, I have a problem with you doubting that the use of "ALL" in the consecration possibly made the Mass invalid. I find your doubt totally unacceptable. I find your doubt of whether or not our recent Popes have been true Popes or not totally unacceptable. This transcends disagreement and goes to the very core of Catholicity from my perspective. I mean where is your Church? Who is making the daily decisions? Is it you? Is it deceased Popes? Is it your convictions alone or should someone tweak them with every twist and turn imaginable? Where is the Holy Ghost in your Church? Is your answer that while I am in doubt land I will live in a possiblliy Vicar less Church with a Mass attended daily by millions and millions that is not valid and/or suspect. Maybe it would have been easier for you if the Captain had announced, attention everyone we are about to enter very rough seas for the next half century or so, do not loose faith we will weather the terrific storm although many a persons faith will be tested to the max. Columba, if you at the very minimum said that the Church deposit of Faith is sound and perfect and VCII must be accepted in light of tradition, we could discuss the crisis of faith. You do not have a base upon which I can move on past these core sticking points. You also completely underestimate how much knowledge and sorrow many Catholics like myself and countless others have of the damage that has been done in the last half century. Let God deal with those who have undermined our Faith. Do not attack doubts. Choose your battles. You are attacking the Church itself. You post as if your view should be one of truth and acceptance rather than one of error, hurt and sorrow as an individual. If only my prayer would be answered that Pope Pius V would come to you in a dream or if only you had more confidence in the Holy Ghost to always safeguard the very essence of our Faith in the best of times and in the most difficult of times; if only....... It should not be Columba living in another time. This is your time. This is Our, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You must suffer with and be part of the Church Faithful. No Doubt!

JMJ,

George

columba Thu May 10, 2012 5:18 pm

Mike,

Not counting your reply to me in another thread (which I've yet to address but will do so in due course), your latest reply to mac and me (sounds like a good name for a movie) must rank as one of your worst attempts at apologetics I've yet to read. One can almost see the straws breaking away as you grab them and I feel certain that you can see this too.

MRyan wrote:
The Church addressed this issue as early as 1970 when the question came to the attention of the Holy See. Pope Paul VI confirmed that “The variant involved [“for all”] is fully justified”; that the variant is a legitimate translation and that “nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation”. Finally, it also said “The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.”

And yet this "variant" needing no correction has been corrected and even though it goes without saying that, "the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid," yet this distinction was nowhere made apparent in the NO anaphora, something that should have been incuded in the sacrament was excluded. Can you name one other sacrament who's efficiency is not expressed clearly in the form? (the new rite of Holy Orders comes to mind but that doesn't concern this thread).

MRyan wrote:
The only authority we need to be concerned with when it comes to the ICEL translation and valid sacramental forms is the Holy Mother Church. In January of 1974 she settled the matter with her Declaration on the meaning of translations of sacramental formulae S.C.D.F., insauratio Liturgica, which declared that when the Church “is satisfied that it [the vernacular translation] expresses the meaning, intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.”

Well if that be the case the Latin text clearly said "for many" (pro multis) and this would have expressed clearly the efficiency of the sacrament. To read "for all" as meaning "for many" one would need to change the vernacular definition of "for all."
So rather than express clearly the effeciency with the correct vernacular term, we are asked to mutilate the vernacular definition of the word "all."

MRyan wrote:
The original Latin text says “for many”, and that is how “for all” is to be understood (e.g., “the all who are many”, “TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER”, “ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL”

Snap goes another straw.

MRyan wrote:
And every reply to this question has been a response to a false argument.

Maybe it really is the case that Mike has gotten so used to the foggy expressions that they appear as clear as day to him but I don't believe that is the case. I'd sooner believe that he's deliberately refusing to see.

MRyan Thu May 10, 2012 6:24 pm

columba wrote:Mike,

Not counting your reply to me in another thread (which I've yet to address but will do so in due course), your latest reply to mac and me (sounds like a good name for a movie) must rank as one of your worst attempts at apologetics I've yet to read. One can almost see the straws breaking away as you grab them and I feel certain that you can see this too.

Pleas know, columba, that such a statement coming from someone as theologically dense as you means absolutely NOTHING. I stand by every word and I stand by the Church whose own words I cited. You simply cannot address the fact of the Eastern Anaphoras which stand in stark rebuttal to your slap-happy mockery of the Church's understanding of essential signification.

Whenever you employ such cutesy verbosity, I already know you've got nothing. Your insults are as empty as your theology. Let Mac respond to my post; you are simply not equipped to do so. Why don't you respond to this:

Columba tells us that “TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER” explicitly signifies “the many” of the Mystical Body for whom the sacrament is efficacious. Really? Univocally? Can it not be said that the form signifies both sufficiency and efficacy, with the Church guaranteeing that it signifies what it effects (it efficacy … while recognizing “the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid”?

Here, answer your own question:

this distinction was nowhere made apparent in [this] anaphora, something that should have been included in the sacrament was excluded. Can you name one other sacrament who's efficiency is not expressed clearly in the form?

columba Thu May 10, 2012 6:26 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Columba,

So once again I start by saying "ALL" was completely and spiritually not only valid but of the highest Holiness as part of the Transubstantiation.

And that's your own conclusion George despite the evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that this "highest Holiness" had to be corrected. What more can I say.

Why must you continue to dwell on this. All is not used anymore.

Yes. What's done is done. It's a shame however that millions of souls have departed this world since 1979 without possibly having attended a valid mass.
BTW, This thread was started by Mike, not me.

You can not even accept two simple facts that "ALL" was completely within the teaching authority of the Church to use and secondly "ALL" is now all gone.

Contrary to what you think, I deal soley in reality and know that "ALL" has disappeared. The teaching authority of the Church had never used the word "all" in it's promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, it merely refused to act and permitted the abuse to go unchecked. If it did in fact advocate the word "all" as a proper rendition of the the word "many," one could legitimately question the validity of the authority which did so. If your average high school Latin/English student could translate "pro multis" correctly, then what can be said for the professors of Languages involved in the vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo Missae? One can only presume that their mistranslation was deliberate.

Columba, if you at the very minimum said that the Church deposit of Faith is sound and perfect and VCII must be accepted in light of tradition, we could discuss the crisis of faith

George, I've already said this in numerous occasions. All that can be understood in the light of tradition I understand precisely in that way. For those teachings that cannot be understood thus, I reject them and hold their contrary meaning in accord with sacred tradition.

You are attacking the Church itself.

No I'm not. How is attacking error an attack on the Church?

Where is the Holy Ghost in your Church?

George, In your vision of the Church, the Holy Ghost is in every church including the churches of heritics, apostates and even devil worshipers. Whatever your perception may be of the Church to which I belong, it seems that in your opinion this is the only Church absent the Holy Ghost. But I can tell you that the Church to which I belong is the same Church to which my ancestors belonged as far back as I can trace.

if only I considered you Catholic. I think your first reaction to this statement might be one of anger

I believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which no one at all can be saved. I also believe in One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and believe every other point of faith contained in the creed. In beliveing thus I believe those same things as always believed by Holy Mother Church. If you do not believe these then I am not angry; I am saddened. If you do believe these I am happy for both of us for we both believe and belong to the same Church.

George Brenner Thu May 10, 2012 8:02 pm

Columba,

You say corrected "ALL" to "MANY" and so sad that probably millions of souls that were going to Mass, receiving Communion all these decades and it was too no avail. Would you grant a grandfather clause for those that were pre Columba or pre Dimond out of kindness? Do you even realize the scope of those words and the responsibility and accountability that you might have for such doubt or possible personal judgement. Yes , I am on record as saying that I did pray for the return of the word "Many", not as a correction of a bogus Consecration as you proclaim but simply as Cardinal Arinze explains as the more faithful use of Jesus words as compared to the Cathechesis explanation of Jesus dying for ALL men but that only Many would answer the call. Play The Cardinals explanation again.

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to REMAIN in it.336

I can and would not judge your possible Salvation. That is not for me to judge.
If simply asked do I consider in my opinion Columba a Catholic. I have to say no for you have in fact refused to remain in the Church. By doubting the validity of the Mass and the validity of Popes, I have to consider you outside the Church.

MRyan Thu May 10, 2012 9:48 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote
The Church addressed this issue as early as 1970 when the question came to the attention of the Holy See. Pope Paul VI confirmed that “The variant involved [“for all”] is fully justified”; that the variant is a legitimate translation and that “nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation”. Finally, it also said “The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.”
And yet this "variant" needing no correction has been corrected and even though it goes without saying that, "the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid," yet this distinction was nowhere made apparent in the NO anaphora, something that should have been incuded in the sacrament was excluded. Can you name one other sacrament who's efficiency is not expressed clearly in the form? (the new rite of Holy Orders comes to mind but that doesn't concern this thread).

That the variant translation was justified, legitimate and did NOT require correction (it still signified the same effect as “for many”) does not mean that if it was corrected that it was done out of some necessity as if that which did not require correction now required correction. Your bombastic fulminations suggest that the Church finally realized that she may have approved a “doubtful” form, when this is simply false. It was matter of prudence, and even justice; it was a matter of remaining faithful to the original Latin text and to tradition. In other words, the correction was long overdue, but the validity, sufficiency and efficacy of “for all” were never called into question as the Church understands it.

In fact, that the Church corrected the translation is proof enough for you that the Church admitted that she had erred in approving a “doubtful” translation; when the Church never entertained such a doubt, and never even remotely entertained the idea of having changed the substance of the sacrament (heresy).

If you believe she did so - there’s the door, you have no options left. It’s that simple.

columba wrote:
Can you name one other sacrament who's efficiency is not expressed clearly in the form? (the new rite of Holy Orders comes to mind but that doesn't concern this thread).

Well, you called it, so let’s use the old rite of Holy Orders, which is not “old” at all, but was promulgated only in 1947 with Sacramentum Ordinis:

“By way of historical explanation, it should be noted that this Apostolic Constitution represents the first time in Church History that the formula for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration was so definitively spelled out. Prior to this, there was no consensus, and even in so standard a work as the multi-volume Dogmatic Theology by Pohle-Preuss, there is no definitive formula offered. (Nothing Lacking for Validity:A Response to Rev. Anthony Cekada by Jacob Michael

And with that, your entire argument just took a nose dive, for there was no “univocal” definitive form prior to 1947, though the Church never doubted the validity of the existing and varying rites. Why? Because she provides the Catholic understanding to all of her approved sacramental forms, even in this case where no definitive form existed, and the forms varied with the different rites.

At the end of these citations will be provided the 1947 sacramental form for the Diaconate, and I challenge you to demonstrate where the form univocally signifies the specific office:

Sacramentum Ordinis, Apostolic Constitution Of Pope Pius XII on the Sacrament of Order, November 30, 1947

2. As regards the Sacrament of Order, of which We are now speaking, it is a fact that, notwithstanding its unity and identity, which no Catholic has ever dared to question, in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions, various rites have been added in its conferring; this was surely the reason why theologians began to inquire which of the rites used in conferring the Sacrament of Order belong to its essence, and which do not; it also gave rise to doubts and anxieties in particular cases; and as a consequence the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy that the supreme Authority of the Church might at last decide what is required for validity in conferring of Sacred Orders.

Again, columba, prior to Sacramentum Ordinis, where is the efficacy of Orders clearly expressed in the existing form[s]?

What’s that? Can you speak a little louder, I can’t hear you.

Continuing:

3. All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

Really? Pope Pius XII has no idea who he is dealing with, does he, columba?

Continuing:

4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.

5. As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination. The form consists of the words of the "Preface," of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

"Emitte in eum, quaesumus, Domine, Spiritum Sanctum, quo in opus ministerii tui fideliter exsequendi septiformis gratiae tuae munere roboretur."

(“Send forth upon them, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Holy Spirit that they may be strengthened by Him, through the gift of Thy sevenfold grace, unto the faithful discharge of Thy service.")

Again, please demonstrate how the form signifies a univocal (i.e., unambiguous) expression of the specific order being conferred (diaconate).

Btw, what do you think Pope Pius XII meant by “which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense”, when univocal” means there can be no other sense than that which the words convey?

Good luck; I think I’ll pause right here and await your response.

MRyan Thu May 10, 2012 10:27 pm

columba wrote:
The teaching authority of the Church had never used the word "all" in it's promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, it merely refused to act and permitted the abuse to go unchecked.

This is what I mean by meaningless bombastic verbosity and by "theologically dense".

The “teaching authority of the Church” has nothing to do with the immediate and full Primacy of Peter over the universal rites of the Church. A legislative act is not a teaching act. When the Church, with the Pope’s approval, formally approved the ICEL translation “for all”, this was a specific legislative act of the Magisterium which infallibly guarantees that the substance of the sacrament has not been touched, and that the translation is valid. The Church cannot fail in this regard and remain who she is.

Furthermore, this official promulgation of the Ordinary form of the Mass (or any Liturgical rite) is a solemn act of this same Papal Primacy which infallibly guarantees that the Mass is free from all doctrinal error and cannot, as it is promulgated, cause harm to the faith.

Columba, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it is absolutely painful to watch.

MRyan Fri May 11, 2012 9:39 am

If columba can restrain himself from mockery (actually, it doesn’t matter), I’d like to explore the principle of “clear signification” in a bit more detail.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
In summary, Columba once again takes great liberty with the “facts”, and as usual, gets his facts wrong.
If you notice in the two anaphors that refer to "all," care is taken to signify what the "all" means. The "all" in both cases is referring to the "many" and cannot be mistaken to mean literally all humanity.

Let’s take the Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist:

THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER.”

“This is shed forth for the life of the world” clearly signifies sufficiency; however, “for … the remission of sins to all” cannot be mistaken for “all of humanity” who “believe in Him forever and ever”, as not all men will receive the remission of sins and not all men will believe in Him forever and ever.

This is important: Neither “to all” nor “to many” [who] believe in Him forever and ever” clearly signify the redeemed many – the elect only.

In fact, neither does “for many unto the remission of sins” clearly signify the redeemed many - the elect only. Will all of the many who, as a result of the Passion, receive the remission of sins receive the fruit of salvation? Of course not, but if we take a literal reading of the Catechism of Trent, it says our Lord used “for many” to mean “the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles … as in this place the fruits of the Passion alone are spoken of, and to the elect only did this Passion bring the fruit of salvation."

Is the fruit of the Passion final salvation, or the remission of sins and sanctification (“life) which opens the door of salvation to all men who worthily receive the grace of His Passion? Where does “for many unto the remission of sins” clearly signify the remission of sins for the elect only – those only who will receive the fruit of salvation?

In other words, is the Catechism of Trent using "the elect" in the more formal theological sense as meaning the predestined members of the Church Triumphant who are "chosen as the object of mercy or Divine favour, as set apart for eternal life", or the "many" who are members of the Mystical Body (the Church Militant) who will receive the fruit of the Passion - "the remission of sins" (sanctification), who are "set apart", but not necessarily set apart for final perseverance and eternal life?

No one is questioning the fact that “for many” more clearly signifies the efficacy rather than the sufficiency of the sacrament, but “for many unto the remission of sins” does not clearly signify those only (the elect) who will receive its fruit – the fruit of salvation; it more clearly signifies precisely what is says – that the fruit of the Passion (the shedding of Blood) is, for the many who will receive this grace, the remission of sins; just as “all” who worthily receive this grace receive the remission of sins.

Simply put, is the efficacy of the shedding of Christ’s blood the grace of the remission of sins (sanctification –“life”), or the grace of salvation which is reserved for the elect only? Does election refer to final salvation, or to grace and memebrship in the Mystical Body?

Finally, what does “which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins” more clearly signify?

Hint: The Church provides the Catholic understanding to all approved sacramental forms and in the same sense as she has always understood them regardless of the words (from various traditions) within the approved form that are not essential to a valid sacrament (accidental words which do not touch upon the substance of the sacrament). And, even “for many unto the remission of sins” is open to different interpretations with respect to efficacy; the true interpretation of which the Church, and only the Church, provides.

Back to business:

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
The only authority we need to be concerned with when it comes to the ICEL translation and valid sacramental forms is the Holy Mother Church. In January of 1974 she settled the matter with her Declaration on the meaning of translations of sacramental formulae S.C.D.F., insauratio Liturgica, which declared that when the Church “is satisfied that it [the vernacular translation] expresses the meaning, intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.”
Well if that be the case the Latin text clearly said "for many" (pro multis) and this would have expressed clearly the efficiency of the sacrament. To read "for all" as meaning "for many" one would need to change the vernacular definition of "for all."
So rather than express clearly the effeciency with the correct vernacular term, we are asked to mutilate the vernacular definition of the word "all."

We are not asked to “mutilate” anything. Layman have no business questioning the validity of the approved forms of the Church – period. The sufficiency vs. efficacy debate is left to theologians and to the final arbiter of all such matters, the Church. Once the form and the translations are approved, the “debate” for laymen is over.

This does not mean that an appeal cannot be made through the proper channels to petition for a more faithful literal translation, but laymen have no business lecturing the Church on sacramental theology and the limits of the power of the pope over the accidents of her sacramental forms. Any suggestion that the Pope approved a change that touched on the substance of the sacrament is heretical.

If you believe the Pope did so - there’s the door, you have no options left. It’s that simple.

MRyan Fri May 11, 2012 2:44 pm

Mac wrote:
Every reply to this question since has been a response to Omlor. Fr. Most was the first and his exchanges with Omlor were included in later editions in the early 1970s. The problem with Fr. Most's argument is that he does not believe, as Omlor affirms, that the Reality of the sacrament must be signified in the sacramental form. Since Anglican order were declared to be invalid for this very reason, Fr. Most fails to address the primary question in the argument.

As I already said, Fr. Most did not say anything to indicate “that he does not believe, as Omlor affirms, that the Reality of the sacrament must be signified in the sacramental form.”

Mac, you will have to produce the evidence for such an accusation if it is to have any merit. To even suggest such a thing is to accuse Fr. Most of heresy, and the argument is specious on its face.

However, we often hear the equally false accusation that says the form of Consecration in the Ordinary form of the Mass using the ICEL approved translation (“for all”) is invalid for the very same reason Anglican orders were declared invalid.

And, as we all know, the primary reason “ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void” is a defect in form.

But, some Forum members might be surprised to learn that this inherent defect in Anglican orders has little to do with the actual words (or “ambiguity”) of the form, when, compared to the Catholic form, as Fr. Harrison says:

the Catholic form of ordination does not verbally express Catholic doctrine about the priesthood more clearly than the Anglican form. Indeed, the latter - if we were to interpret it superficially and in isolation from its context - might even be considered superior to the Catholic form, insofar as it seems to be including the priest's power of absolving from sin by quoting the words of John 20:23.

Fr. Harrison continues:

Why did Leo XIII, then, declare that the form of sacramental ordination in the Anglican rite is invalid? Here we arrive at a source of no little confusion, because unfortunately the criteria for a valid form in the Sacrament of Holy Order are not so clear-cut as they are in that of Baptism. There are certain well-known words - "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" - which are required by the Catholic Church as a valid form of baptism. If these words are substantially changed or omitted, this deviation will be fairly obvious, so that there is usually no great difficulty in determining whether a given baptismal rite contains a valid form or not.

In the case of sacramental ordination, however, there are a variety of different forms of words which have been recognized as valid by the Catholic Church over the centuries, in many different liturgies - ancient and modern, Eastern and Western. All of them, however, signify in some way that the grace of the priesthood (or episcopacy, as the case may be) is being bestowed – understood in the Catholic sense of the words "priest" and "bishop." And the heart of the confusion surrounding the question of Anglican orders arises from the fact that verbally, the essential form of priestly ordination in the Anglican rite is not significantly different from that of the modern (Latin Rite) Catholic Church.

Why, then, did Leo XIII judge the form of Anglican orders to be invalid, when the actual words do not seem significantly different from those used in Catholic ordinations? After all, the Pontiff himself did not rule out the possibility that in themselves, the words "for the office and work of a priest" in the above Anglican prayer "might have lent the form a legitimate signification," even though they were in any case added a century too late, when no more true Bishops were left in England - that is, nobody left with the capacity to make fruitful use of even a valid rite of ordination (AC, 26).

To answer this question, we must refer to the crucial point in Pope Leo's argument, which we have already referred to above: what he called the "native character and spirit" of the whole Anglican Ordinal. The point is that the mere use of the words "priest" and "bishop" will be insufficient for a valid form of ordination if those words bear a different meaning from that which the Catholic Church understands. And in order to determine what meaning these words have in the Anglican rite, one has to consider their historical and literary context - that is, what doctrine of ministry or priesthood is taught by that rite of ordination considered as a whole. This involves looking not only at the central prayer - the essential form of ordination - but also at the other prayers and texts of the Ordinal, as well as the opinions which are known to have been held by its authors.

Once an investigation of this sort is carried out, it very quickly becomes apparent what the Anglican Reformers did and did not understand by the word "priest." As Leo XIII called to mind, the Catholic idea of the priestly character - an idea which must be expressed or at least intended in any valid form of priestly ordination - is "pre-eminently the power 'to consecrate and offer the true body and blood of the Lord' in that sacrifice which is no 'mere commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the Cross'" (AC, 25). However Thomas Cranmer and the other original Anglican Reformers not only did not believe in the sacrificial power of the priest, but were positively hostile to this Catholic doctrine, which they regarded as heretical and blasphemous. Therefore, in revising the Catholic rite of ordination, they deliberately made sure that none of the texts or prayers or gestures contained even the slightest hint of this "pre-eminent" and essential feature of the priestly character as understood by Catholics. Thus, the "native character and spirit" of the whole Anglican rite (including, of course, the central prayer embodying the form of ordination) was one of a deliberate exclusion of what Catholics understand by the priesthood. As Leo XIII said,

these prayers have been deliberately stripped of everything which in the Catholic rite clearly sets forth the dignity and functions of the priesthood. It is impossible, therefore, for a form to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses that which it ought distinctively to signify.(10)
The inevitable consequence of this deliberate suppression, the Pope continues, is that even though this or that Anglican prayer "conceivably ... might be held to suffice in a Catholic rite which the Church had approved,"(11) the fact remains that words such as "priest" or "bishop," occurring in the existing Anglican Ordinal, cannot bear the same sense as they have in a Catholic rite. For, as we have seen, when once a new rite has been introduced denying or corrupting the sacrament of Order and repudiating any notion whatsoever of consecration and sacrifice, then the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost" (that is, the Spirit who is infused into the soul with the grace of the sacrament), is deprived of its force; nor have the words, "for the office and work of a priest" or "bishop," etc., any longer their validity, being now mere names voided of the reality which Christ instituted.(12)

Leo XIII's argument could be summed up, then, as being based on the principle that a rite cannot convey something which it was intended specifically to exclude and repudiate. And in fact, as the Pope and many others since have pointed out, there have always been many Anglicans who agree entirely with Leo's condemnation of Anglican orders - in the sense that they do not believe their rite conveys those powers which Catholics ascribe to ordained priests, and indeed, would be totally opposed to any attempt to convey such powers. (http://rtforum.org/lt/lt14.html)

Sorry, Mac, but you are simply wrong, and I hope you are open to correction.

Unfortunately, there is another "opinion" favored by a certain group of notorious dissenters who understand all of this, but stand by this accusation nonetheless; for only a heretical apostate Church could deliberately and maliciously approve a rite that allegedly "convey[s] something which it was intended specifically to exclude and repudiate", which it simply cannot convey.

Meaning, "the mere use of the words ['for many'] and ['mysterium fidei'] will be insufficient for a valid form of [consecration] if those words bear a different meaning from that which the Catholic Church understands."

In other words, the "modernists" in the Vatican and the ICEL, "not only did not believe in [transubstantiation], but were positively hostile to this Catholic doctrine, which they regarded as heretical and blasphemous. Therefore, in revising the Catholic rite of [the Mass], they deliberately made sure that none of the texts or prayers or gestures contained even the slightest hint of this 'pre-eminent' and essential feature of the [sacrificial] character as understood by Catholics."

"Thus, the 'native character and spirit' of the whole ['Novous Ordo rite'] (including, of course, the central prayer embodying the form of [consecration]) was one of a deliberate exclusion of what Catholics understand by the Eucharist."

"For, as we have seen, when once a new rite has been introduced denying or corrupting the sacrament of [Eucharist] and repudiating any notion whatsoever of consecration and sacrifice, then the formula, ['This is My Blood'], ... is deprived of its force; nor have the words, 'for you and for many' ... any longer their validity, being now mere names voided of the reality which Christ instituted."

Only a sedevacantist could ever believe such a thing.

They need our prayers, not our pity, not our sympathy, and not our empathy.

columba Fri May 11, 2012 4:19 pm

George Brenner wrote:
By doubting the validity of the Mass and the validity of Popes, I have to consider you outside the Church.

Well thanks be to God your anathemas carry no weight otherwise along with columba you would have anathematized a whole host of Doctors scholars, theologians and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia,.

Among them the following would have to be included:

“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the Divine Law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in a certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Marato — Institutions Juris Canonici, 1921)

“Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (Billot — De Ecclesia, 1927)

“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state . . .
“Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body . . . Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way —that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not . . .
“For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died —for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
“These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary” (De Ecclesia 2:196-7). (A. Dorsch — Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928)

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope —with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” (Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly, S.J. The Relations of the Church to Society, 1882)

We must not think of the church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be recondensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous.* ‘But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic Churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven .. . But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to who He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.
*During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, says Cajetan, the universal Church is in an imperfect state; she is like an amputated body, not an integral body. “The Church is acephalous, deprived of her highest part and power.”
(Msgr. Journet — The Church of the Incarnate Word: -B. The Church During a Vacancy of the Holy See)

“During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.” (Msgr. Journet — The Church of the Incarnate Word)

“. . . by exception and by suppletory manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism.” (Cajetan, O. P. — De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii)

“When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council.”
“Because ‘natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” (Billot — De Ecclesia Christi)

“Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him... If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father.
“Hence such an election; ‘a tota Ecclesia debet provideri et non ab aliqua partuculari Ecclesia.’ (“It should be carried by all the Church and not by any particular Church.”) And this is because “Ilia potestas est communis et spectat ad totam Ecclesiam. Ergo a tata Ecclesia debet provideri.’” (“That power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.”) (Vitoria — De Potestate Ecclesiae)

“Immediately, one ought to resists in facie, a pope who is publicly destroying the Church; for example, to want to give ecclesiastical benefits for money or charge of services. And one ought to refuse, with all obedience and respect, and not to give possession of these benefits to those who bought them.” (Cajetan:)

“What is there to do when the pope wishes without reason to abrogate the positive right order? To this he responds, ‘He certainly sins; one ought not to permit him to proceed thus, nor ought one to obey him in what is bad; one ought to resist him with a polite reprehension. In consequence, if he wished to deliver all the treasures of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter to his parents; if he was left to destroy the Church or in similar works, one ought not to permit him to work in this form, having the obligation of giving him resistance. And the reason for this is, in these matters he has no right to destroy. Immediately evident of what he is doing, it is licit to resist him. Of all this it results that, if the pope, by his order or his acts, destroys the Church, one can resist and impede the execution of his commands.’” (Silvestra:)

“If the pope gave an order contrary to the good customs, one should not obey him; if his intent is to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it is lawful and valid to resist; if attacked by force, one shall be able to resist with force, with the moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (Suarez:)

“Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that attacks the body, it is also licit to resist (him) who attacks the soul, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, he who intends to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of that which he wills. It is not licit, with everything, to judge him impose a punishment, or depose him, for these actions are accorded to one superior to the pope.” (St. Robert Bellarmine:)

“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church . . . ” (St. Francis de Sales:)

“A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (St. Robert Bellarmine:)

“If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he should at once fall from the Pontificate. If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori:)

“In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off.” (St. Antoninus:)

“Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact (ipso facto) is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment by the Church... A Pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church.” And also: “A doubtful pope is no pope.” (Wernz-Vidal — Canon Law, 1943)

“The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913)

“The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Pope Innocent III:)

“If indeed such a situation would happen, he (the Roman Pontiff) would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Matthaeus Conte a Coronata — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950)

“At least according to the more common teaching; the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the Supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically (ipso facto) fall from power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” (A. Vermeersch — Epitome Iuris Canonici, 1949)

“‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.” (Edward F. Regatillo — Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956)

With regards to the NO Mass, its validity or otherwise is no concern of mine as I do not attend and my reasons for non-participation go far beyond the question of "all" vs "many." I have commandments to keep and reverence for God is the first of them; the punishment for failure in this area...loss of the supernatural virtue of faith, possession by demons or both. Trampling the Lord underfoot would have to be ranked the greatest sacrilege a mere mortal could commit and of that I am most certain. I have much penance yet to do for past sacrileges of this kind committed in ignorance, but I have no plea of ignorance remaining if I were to do so again. It is the duty of every Catholic to treat the Holy Eucharist with utmost respect.

"Be careful then that you do not lose anything of the Body of the Lord. If you let fall anything, you must think of it as though you cut off one of the members of your own body. Tell me, I beg you, if someone gave you kernels of gold, would you not guard them with the greatest care and diligence, intent on not losing anything? Should you not exercise even greater care and vigilance, so that not even a crumb of the Lord's Body could fall to the ground, for It is far more precious than gold or jewels?"
St. Cyril of Jerusalem

George Brenner Fri May 11, 2012 9:19 pm

Columba said: With regards to the NO Mass, its validity or otherwise is no concern of mine as I do not attend and my reasons for non-participation go far beyond the question of "all" vs "many." I have commandments to keep and reverence for God is the first of them; the punishment for failure in this area...loss of the supernatural virtue of faith, possession by demons or both. Trampling the Lord underfoot would have to be ranked the greatest sacrilege a mere mortal could commit and of that I am most certain. I have much penance yet to do for past sacrileges of this kind committed in ignorance, but I have no plea of ignorance remaining if I were to do so again. It is the duty of every Catholic to treat the Holy Eucharist with utmost respect.

Columba, You do understand what you are doing to God and Church. I read thoroughly this post and your sources. You must realize that what we believe to be true, whether in thought, speech or the written word is known to God. I have come to the conclusion that the written posts by myself and others will not help you since your heart has become hardened. It is all about you isn't it? Columba, you have said to God : " With regards to the NO Mass, its validity or otherwise is no concern of mine " Really, NO concern of yours. Well it is a concern to God, Church, The Pope and true Catholics. I pray that your continued fall may some day result in a spiritual awakening in truth and contentment. Saint Augustine is a great example for all of us.

Columba , you go on to say: " It is the duty of every Catholic to treat the Holy Eucharist with utmost respect." and have repeatedly said that you doubt that the Novus Ordo Mass has been valid. You have told Jesus that He has not been present in the Eucharist; so by your own words you have treated the Holy Eucharist with the utmost disrespect by your denial before God and Church of the real presence.

You Columba charge our recent Popes of heresy. So cast your stones. State specifically your most egregious charges of heresy. Let those charges be
known to God and church. All these endless posts and you have only become more and more removed from the Catholic Church.

Mac Fri May 11, 2012 11:45 pm

MRyan wrote:
Mac wrote:
MRyan:

I would only like to make a few observations rather than enter fully into this question.
Hi Mac,

If what follows is just “a few observations”, I’d hate to see you “fully” engaged.

Mac wrote:
1) Patrick Omlor wrote his thesis on this subject in 1967 after the ICEL first introduced the corrupted translation. The reason given by the ICEL was twofold: a) They claimed incorrectly that Jesus intended to use the word "all" but there was no Aramaic word for "all" and therefore He used the word "many," and b) they claimed that the reality of the sacrament is the sufficiency of the sacrifice and not the efficacy of the sacrifice that was traditionally held.
The Church addressed this issue as early as 1970 when the question came to the attention of the Holy See. Pope Paul VI confirmed that “The variant involved [“for all”] is fully justified”; that the variant is a legitimate translation and that “nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation”. Finally, it also said “The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.”

The only authority we need to be concerned with when it comes to the ICEL translation and valid sacramental forms is the Holy Mother Church. In January of 1974 she settled the matter with her Declaration on the meaning of translations of sacramental formulae S.C.D.F., insauratio Liturgica, which declared that when the Church “is satisfied that it [the vernacular translation] expresses the meaning, intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.”

The original Latin text says “for many”, and that is how “for all” is to be understood (e.g., “the all who are many”, “TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER”, “ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL”; or for all of those for whom the sacrament is efficacious); so all of this “debate” about the “real meaning of “for all” vis a vis sufficiency versus efficacy is all for naught – “for all” does indeed signify the “Reality of the sacrament”; the Church declared it so when she settled this issue over 38 years ago (and it is now a mute point).

The Church does not possess the authority to change the substance of the sacraments. The substance of the sacraments is the form and the matter. If you believe that the Church could change the form then they could just as well change the matter to cola and cookies. If you think that is possible then any discussion is a waste of time.

The words “all” and “many” do not mean the same thing. To claim that the meaning of the word must be supplied by the celebrant is false. The sacramental signification must come from the form and not be imposed upon it. For the word “all” to signify the sacramental reality (i.e.: members of the mystical body of Christ), a restrictive phrase, such as, “of the faithful” must be supplied. If this same restrictive phrase is supplied to the normative Latin text, which uses pro multis, that it would impose a heretical signification.

MRyan wrote:
Mac wrote:
Every reply to this question since has been a response to Omlor. Fr. Most was the first and his exchanges with Omlor were included in later editions in the early 1970s. The problem with Fr. Most's argument is that he does not believe, as Omlor affirms, that the Reality of the sacrament must be signified in the sacramental form. Since Anglican order were declared to be invalid for this very reason, Fr. Most fails to address the primary question in the argument.

Fr. Brian Harrison's reply to Omlor, although I think it is deficient, at least recognizes the problem that the reality of the sacrament must by signified in the form and he structures his reply in this context.
And every reply to this question has been a response to a false argument.

Patrick Omlor is not the Church, he is not “the” expert in sacramental theology or in the laws and rights of the Church governing sacramental forms; and he is not the only one who questioned or even denied the sufficiency (efficacy) of “for all”, but his work is indeed the “bible” for those who make the same accusation or harbor the same doubts. And when his alleged proofs fail (and they have), so goes the entire “invalid form” movement. If Mr. Omlor is the quasi-official spokesperson for the “invalid form” movement, then the Church replied at least indirectly to Mr. Omlor, and her answer is authoritative and final (Rome has spoken).

In speaking of the traditional sacramental form of the Latin Church, Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence (1439), declared in Exultate Deo (On the Eucharist), “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of the sacrament, that is, the union of the people with Christ.” But he did not mean by this that “this” traditional form of the Latin Rite is the only form that can signify the essential effect of the sacrament, or that the same signification cannot be realized without “for all” and even without “for many”; or that “for all” cannot provide the same signification as the traditional Latin Form.

In 1439 there were many more approved local Liturgical rites (both East and West) than there were after the promulgation of Quo Primum, whose forms, as we have already demonstrated, did not necessarily include “for many”. Were these approved forms any less “fitting … to signify the effect of the sacrament, that is, the union of the people with Christ”?

Whatever you think is “deficient” in Fr. Harrison’s reply, your argument presupposes that “for all” does not and cannot signify the “Reality of the sacrament” in “the sacramental form”, and this is simply false. Both “for all” and “for many” signify both the sufficiency and the efficacy of the sacrament; for, as the Church attests, the Church supplies and infallibly guarantees its proper signification. Furthermore, if “for all” does not and cannot signify the efficacy of the Sacrament, then the following approved Anaphoras are invalid:

Ancient Maronite Canon: "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.”

The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist: "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER.”

Tell us, Mac, how does “THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER” explicitly signify “the many” of the Mystical Body who will benefit from the grace of sacrament, when Protestants and other non-Catholics who drink of the Cup “Believe in Him for ever and ever”, and also believe “THIS [“My Blood”] IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS?

Columba tells us that “TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER” explicitly signifies “the many” of the Mystical Body for whom the sacrament is efficacious. Really? Univocally? Can it not be said that the form signifies both sufficiency and efficacy, with the Church guaranteeing that it signifies what it effects (it efficacy … while recognizing “the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid”?

What the preceding form demonstrates is the principle of supplied Catholic understanding – which is supplied by the Church and which guarantees that the form signifies its essential effect (the grace) of the sacrament.

As Miller points out, in rebutting the arguments Mr. Omlor, on page 240 of Omlor’s “The Robber Church”:

He defends “unto” despite the fact that “unto” [THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS] has other meanings which he even admits (see his footnote # 13 from this section in “Robber Church”). Therefore, “necessary signification” of words alone is not sufficient, but rather the supplied Catholic understanding provides proper signification. This is no different than what is required for the words “for all”. Here we have a self-contradiction within the structure of Mr. Omlor’s arguments. He applies the principle of supplied Catholic understanding in his arguments for “unto,” yet he allows no consideration to the words of the new form”. (Miller, p. 89)
If we follow Mr. Omlor’s arguments (as it appears you do), the following ancient forms are invalid:

Eucharistic Prayer of the ancient St. Hippolytus: “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, you perform my memorial.”

Here are a couple of Old Liturgies finds of recent history of Egyptian liturgies. The Sacramentary of Serapion, written about 353-356 AD by Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, a colleague of both St. Athanasius, and of St. Anthony gives us an ancient liturgical text, and following that a Deir Balizeh manuscript that goes back to the third century:

We have offered also the cup, the likeness of the blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his disciples, ‘Take ye, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is being shed for you for remission of sins.’”

”Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had blessed it and had drunk, he gave it to them saying, Take, drink all of it. This is my blood which is being shed for you unto remission of sins.”

The following Oriental Liturgies in use today (and also way before Vatican II) have the following consecrations, the Catholic Ethiopian Rite and the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites:

“And likewise also the cup giving thanks, he blessed it, and hallowed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said unto them, Take, drink, this is my blood (pointing and bowing profoundly), which is shed for you for the remission of sins.”

Take, drink this cup: my blood it is, which is shed for you for the remission of sin.”

Whitehead and Likoudis in the same book give us further points:

A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form of the consecration are not to be found.

Scholars studying the Eastern rites can point to many anaphoras, or Eucharistic prayers, which do not include the “for many.” The “For many” is included in the contemporary liturgy of almost all of the Eastern rites or churches today (except the Ethiopian); but the fact that it has not always and everywhere been included in rites whose validity the Catholic Church has never questioned or doubted, amply demonstrates that it is not essential for validity. And whether it is essential has been precisely the question we are concerned with there. [10] (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html)

Mr. Omlor said that “for all” denotes only sufficiency, or, said another way, “the new form fails to signify (and even signifies falsely) the Res Sacramenti (i.e, the union of the faithful with the Mystical Body of Christ).” But he has failed to prove that this is necessarily so, while it has been proven that “the new form, as the Church uses and understands the words, does signify properly.” (Miller, pg. 93)

So it is simply not true to say that “Fr. Most ... does not believe, as Omlor affirms, that the Reality of the sacrament must be signified in the sacramental form”, because he does. The “problem” is in having the correct understanding of “necessary signification”; and understanding that the overriding principle that governs all such understanding is that proper signification which is supplied by the Church. Fr. Most simply does not believe that this signification must explicitly (without any other possible meaning) stand on its own as clearly and univocally signifying “the union of the faithful with the Mystical Body of Christ”; or that “for many” are the not the only words that can supply the necessary signification … and he is absolutely correct.

Mac, I’m going to address Anglican Orders is a separate post; it’s very important to this subject and deserves some additional attention, and I’m glad you brought it up.

There are no words of consecration in any rite that use the word “all” without a phrase restricting its extension, and there are none where the sacramental reality is not signified. The one example provided in the Maronite rite is wrong. I will address that in a moment.

Adam Miller’s thesis that a “supplied Catholic understanding provides proper signification” is wrong. He argues that in many sacramental forms the word or words signifying the Reality of the sacrament do not necessarily do so therefore, the sacramental signification must be provided by supplying a “Catholic understanding.” He further says that only words that are necessarily heretical would invalidate a sacrament.

From this it follows that the ICEL could translate the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist as “This is the bread of life” and “This is the chalice of eternal salvation.” These metaphors are in the traditional Roman Canon. They are not NECESSARILY heretical and a Catholic sense could be imposed to signify their meaning. This might please the majority of Catholics who no longer believe in the True Presence.

I suppose the ICEL could simply say “This is bread” and we would supply the Catholic understanding with a restrictive prepositional phrase, “of life” thus giving “the bread of life” which is only a short supplied understanding to the Body of Christ.

The ICEL could translate the form of Baptism as, “I baptize thee in the Name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.” This does not NECESSARILY signify a different Reality and would be an appeasing accommodation to the feminists who are pressing for this very change. They could even translate the form; “I baptize thee in the name of the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob.” This again does not NECESSARILY signify a different Reality and might be a welcomed ecumenical rite of initiation for all Christians, Moslems and Jews.

Applying the principle of “Supplied Understanding” as Miller does would lay the theological ground for destroying the sacraments. What is clear from these examples is that the principle of “Supplied Understanding” cannot be applied to the sacramental form in the same sense that it is applied to the rite of the sacrament. The sacraments are “outward signs instituted by Christ to confer grace.” This first fact cannot be forgotten. That is why the Church has no right to touch anything regarding the substance of the sacraments. The Church has the liberty to manipulate the form and matter of a sacrament in a very narrow range. She may permit leavened or unleavened bread but she cannot change the matter to cola and cookies.

The sacrament (i.e.: the form and matter) is where the signification must come. The word “many” was the effective sign chosen by Christ to signify a specific Reality. It is true that it is not explicit what “many” refers but what we do know is that the Blood of Christ is not efficacious for “all.” Christ has left it to His Church to explain exactly who the “many” are. In the sacramental form, the word “many” is, and of itself, perfectly orthodox. Any heretical interpretation requires the addition of a heretical note. The word “all” is, and of itself, heretical. It is a word of unlimited extension and requires the addition of a note of restriction for it to have an orthodox meaning. In short, the sacramental form in the ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo is lacking something, which must be added to it to prevent a heretical signification.

Compare the previous Novus Ordo English with the Novus Ordo in Latin. In English the “all” is to be limited in its extension by the “supplied understanding” of the restrictive phrase, “of the members of the Mystical Body of Christ.” Yet if this note is “supplied” to the same liturgical rite offered in Latin the sacramental signification would be corrupted. The fact that the same rite in its normative form does not require or even permit this “supplied understanding,” while the ICEL translation of that same rite does, should make it clear that something is missing in the sacramental signification.

MRyan wrote:
Mac wrote:
2) The quote from Mediator Dei that, "Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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." The term, "new rites," in the context of the encyclical is used in a very restricted sense. Pope Pius XII gives explicit examples of what he means by "new rites," such as, adding new feasts in the sanctorial cycle.

Really? So when Pope Pius V introduced a “new rite” in 1570 by formally declaring “This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution …”, he was not actually approving a newly reformed rite for the Latin Church, but was codifying certain “external features of the sacred liturgy” (Mater Dei, #56) that already existed in the same Rite? Perhaps Pope Pius V “erred” when formally declaring that he established a “new rite”?

Furthermore, Pope Pius XII’s words are quite clear when he says "Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right 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", where “any practice touching the worship of God” includes the introduction and approval of “new rites” in the form of the sacred Liturgy.

And, “the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God” includes the “power” the “Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys” “as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist”; it’s “substance being untouched, it [the Church] may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.” (Session 21, The Council of Trent).

Here is the actual “context” of the subject passage in Mediator Dei:

16. Thus we observe that when God institutes the Old Law, He makes provision besides for sacred rites, and determines in exact detail the rules to be observed by His people in rendering Him the worship He ordains. To this end He established various kinds of sacrifice and designated the ceremonies with which they were to be offered to Him…

21. Liturgical practice begins with the very founding of the Church. The first Christians, in fact, "were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers." Whenever their pastors can summon a little group of the faithful together, they set up an altar on which they proceed to offer the sacrifice, and around which are ranged all the other rites appropriate for the saving of souls and for the honor due to God. Among these latter rites, the first place is reserved for the sacraments, namely, the seven principal founts of salvation…

22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it." Here then is a better and more suitable way to raise the heart to God. Thenceforth the priesthood of Jesus Christ is a living and continuous reality through all the ages to the end of time, since the liturgy is nothing more nor less than the exercise of this priestly function.

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow – keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times…
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.

Mac, you are straining at gnats (missing the point); and even the technical point you are straining at is wrong, for it is far too restrictive in meaning.

The official title of the “new rite” Roman Missal published in 1570 is, “The Roman Missal restored according to the decrees of the Holy Council of Trent, published by St. Pius V.”

The pertinent decree from the Council of Trent:

Council of Trent wrote:“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments . . . may be changed to other new rites by any church pastor whomsoever : let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Den. 856).

(note: Some have claimed that this canon condemns the proposition that just any pastor can do what only some pastors are permitted to do. This interpretation is not possible in the original Latin text.)

I think you have taken the term, “new rite,” entirely out of context. I know of no recognized liturgical expert that would agree with this claim for the Roman Missal 1570 constituted a “new rite” except in the restricted sense of a new publication of the rite.

Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei is not claiming the right of the Roman Pontiff to create an entirely “new right” in the sense of creating something from whole cloth. I think you should have continued your quote from Mediator Dei:

Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei wrote:
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.

54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.

55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circumstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.

56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.

Several examples of what he means by “new rites” are provided. There is nothing here to imply that “new rites” means the bureaucratic production of an entirely new creation because the immemorial rite of Mass is not a purely a matter of Church discipline. That is, it is not a free matter for the independent will of the legislator.

Pope Pius XII wrote:Pope Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, said regarding the error of liturgists: "they wander entirely away from the true and full notion and understanding of the Sacred Liturgy, who consider it only as an external part of divine worship, and presented to the senses; or as a kind of apparatus of ceremonial properties; and they no less err who think of it as a mere compendium of laws and precepts, by which the ecclesiastical Hierarchy bids the sacred rites to be arranged and ordered."

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, who Pope Benedict XVI praised as one of the few liturgical experts worthy of the name, said:

Msgr. Klaus Gamber wrote:
"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite, In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.

"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

Further proof that the immemorial Roman Rite, our “received and approved” rite, is not a matter of simple discipline can be found in Fr. Paul Kramer’s book, The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy wherein he said:

Fr. Paul Kramer wrote:
The Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis, prescribes adherence to the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church used in the solemn administration of the sacraments.” The ‘received and approved rites’ are the rites established by custom, and hence the Council of Trent refers to them as the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments (Sess. VII, can XIII). Adherence to the customary rites received and approved by the Church is an infallible defined doctrine: The Council of Florence defined that “priests…. must confect the body of the Lord, each one according to the custom of his Church” (Decretum pro Graecis), and therefore the Council of Trent solemnly condemned as heresy the proposition that “ the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be changed into other new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor whosoever”
Fr. Paul Kramer, The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

MRyan wrote:
Mac wrote:
3) The words, Mysterium Fidei, are present in the form of consecration in the Roman rite from the oldest historical examples. It is presumed by many, even Adrian Fortescue's, that it was added to the sacramental form at some later date but that cannot be proven. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states that the words are of Divine Tradition and that its use in the form of the sacrament is of Apostolic Tradition.
Sorry Mac, to the first part, this is all conjecture, and, as you already know, there are various schools of thought on this. Furthermore, you may have taken the Catechism of Trent out of context. Here is what it actually says:

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following 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. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but 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 found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
“Holy tradition” does not necessarily mean “from Apostolic tradition” in the sense that the any of the Apostles “subjoined” these words (as the Catechism also says) to any individual form that would make it binding on all other forms.

The point is this specific Apostolic tradition is not present in any of the Gospel accounts, or the narrative of St. Paul who received his form directly from our Lord. So the Holy Tradition for the “mystery of faith” must have transpired some time afterward, but it was not universal among the various local Churches and rites, which obviously enjoyed a diversity of forms while maintaining that which is essential to a proper signification (this is proven).

It is also interesting that on page 226 (Tan edition) the Catechism also states that:

The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.
In other words, the mystery of faith, while it does not exclude the reality, actually signifies something other than the essential signification of the sacrament (a matter of faith), and cannot for that very reason be essential to a valid form (as the numerous Eastern Anaphoras so attest).

You quote is incorrect. The catechism of Trent specifically refers to Apostolic Tradition.

Regarding the words of consecration of the wine the Church says in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Catechism of the Council of Trent wrote: “Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition…. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.”

There is no evidence at all to support the claim that the words, Mystery of Faith, were inserted at a much later date. The Church did not “insert” the words “mystery of faith” any more than she inserted the words “This is My Body… This is My Blood.”

St. Thomas wrote:
St. Thomas says the same thing. “The words added, namely, eternal and mystery of faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord..." (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, A. 3, ad 9).

An Archbishop of Lyons asked of Pope Innocent III about the words, "the mystery of faith," in the consecration form for the wine. He answered:

Innocent III wrote:
"You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, which are in the Canon of the Mass that the general Church uses, but which we find expressed by none of the Evangelists. ... In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "the mystery of faith," is found interspersed among His words. ... Surely we find many such things omitted by the Evangelists from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord ... Therefore We believe that the form of words as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them."
Innocent III, Cum Marthae Circa, Nov. 29, 1202. (Cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, nos. 414-415).

I made no comment regarding the sacramental significance of the words, mystery of faith, or any comment regarding their removal or change of traditional signification. The only purpose of my comment is that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the words were added at a later date notwithstanding the opinions of such liturgists as Fortescue. There is an established tradition that the words are of Apostolic and Divine tradition.

MRyan wrote:
Mac wrote:
4) The real reason I am posting this reply is because the claim that an anaphora in the Marionite rite used the word "all" in an unrestricted sense in the sacramental form is not true. The only source for this claim that I know of is Adam Miller who probably got it from Michael Malone who took it from an unreliable source. If you have another authority for this claim I would like to know about it.

If you are interested in what I discovered, I still have detailed notes and exchanges of letters from some excellent authorities on the Marionite liturgy on this question when I first heard the claim about 15 years ago.
Why do you presume to allege that anyone has said that the “anaphora in the Marionite rite used the word ‘all’ in an unrestricted sense in the sacramental form”, as if by signifying its sufficiency it cannot and does not also signify its efficacy (its more restrictive sense)?

Regarding the “legitimate translation” of “for all”, the Church declared “The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.”

I’m surprised that you would say “The only source for this claim that I know of is Adam Miller who probably got it from Michael Malone who took it from an unreliable source”; for Adam Miller’s source is not Mike Malone, but (with respect to the Maronite form) two legitimate sources he identifies by name:

Maybe most damaging to the anti-"for all" advocates is the fact that the clause "for all" was used for a number of centuries in one of the old Maronite Canons (they call it the "Anaphoras"). 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. I am not talking about Modern English translations here. The vernacular has never been used in a Maronite Consecration, but always the Aramaic (also called Syriac). The translation was from Latin into Syriac/Aramaic. Their vernacular being, of course, Arabic (in which the REST of the Mass is said). The updated ("Novus Ordo") translations into the world's vernaculars still has its Consecrations in Syriac/Aramaic. Mr. Omlor, though dealing with an English translation of the Maronite Rite (pp. 160-162), conveniently does not address this fact which refutes his entire argument. (pp. 16-17)
I challenged the “doubting” members of this forum who wished to challenge the authenticity of these sources to contact these sources directly.

To date, no one has taken up the offer; however, since you did not seem to be aware of these sources, and you’re investigation began some 15 years ago, I’m sure you can verify the authenticity of these same sources.

All you have to do is provide the proof that these sources are “unreliable”, and that no such anaphora actually exists in the “old Maronite liturgical books” of Fr. Saad, and that Chorbishop Hector Doueihi (Eparchial Liturgist) was mistaken when he confirmed: "The translation of the old Latin texts said: 'For All.'"

Of course, you will also have to prove the “unreliability” of all of the other documented anaphora’s which disprove Omlor’s (and your) claims.

Let me know how that goes.

It is also interesting that you would suggest that Mike Malone’s source is “unreliable”. Let’s see what Malone actually said (if this is what you are referring to) in his email to John Loughnan (circa 2002):

In fact, this translation, although Scripturally inaccurate, may well be considered an approximation of the actual words of Consecration as given to us by the Evangelist St. Luke: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you" (22:20). The final word of this formula (you) is in the plural, and might more accurately be translated "for you all" (especially if you are from San Antonio, Texas!) ~ precisely as St. Jerome rendered it in his Vulgate, the solitary translation of Holy Writ ever authorized by the Catholic Church in her entire history. Nevertheless, the best codices of Scripture demonstrate that it is not the formulary Our Lord Jesus Christ actually recited at the Last Supper, despite the fact that it clearly suffices for a valid confection of the Sacrament according to the most common and traditional theology, including that of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, Q.78, Art 2, 4). The prolific St. Alphonsus Maria observes that there was once even a Consecration of the Host in the ancient Catholic Coptic Mass ~ brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Egypt ~ which rendered the words of the transubstantiation of the host: "This is the Body"(!) It seems, therefore, that the Catholic Church has always supplied the proper understanding of the various thoughts expressed in our poor human idiom, even in her most sacrosanct ceremony. As the ancient dictum puts it: "Ecclesia Supplicet" ~ The Church supplies. Not even the venerable Tridentine Rite, codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, is capable of escaping this judgment, considering that its own Catechism was called upon to explain, at length and in detail, why its Mass continues to call "bread" what has already been transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ. In the liturgies of virtually every Rite, therefore, a genuinely Catholic understanding must necessarily be supplied in certain instances, in order that misconstructions be curtailed and any affected ambiguity be overcome. [http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html]
Hmmm. “unreliable” source? Which one? St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori who “observes that there was once even a Consecration of the Host in the ancient Catholic Coptic Mass ~ brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Egypt ~ which rendered the words of the transubstantiation of the host: ‘This is the Body’(!)”?

Aquinas? St. Jerome? "[T]he best codices”?

Also, Mike Malone nowhere makes reference to the Maronite anaphora cited by Miller, and does not cite even the same anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist that Miller cites (“OF ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL”), which is taken from "The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the Church of Malabar," 1859; by Father J. M. Neale.”

So that’s at least three independent sources cited by Adam Miller, none of whom include Mike Malone, whose name does not appear in the Bibliography of Miler's "Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid?

It appears you're shooting in the dark, here, Mac; neither does it appear that you read Miller's book.

I have not read Adam Millers book as published. But I did read a pre-publication draft and was asked to comment on it. I investigated the claim of Mr. Miller regarding the Maronite anaphora.

I spoke with the director of the Maronite Seminary in Washington, DC, whose name I cannot recall. He denied that any Maronite anaphora had ever used the word "all" in an unrestricted. He put me in contact with the director of liturgical studies and Msgr. Assad Awad, who is the author of an extensive book on the history of the Maronite liturgy that document over 90 known Maronite anaphoras. Msgr. Awad told me that the referenced quotations by Mr. Miller were not true.

I wrote a letter to Bishop Stephen Hector Doueihi, Eparchy of Maron in Brooklyn , New York requesting an explanation of the attributed quotation. My first letter was not answered so I sent another and received a very informative reply sent on August 2, 2000. The reply was written by Very Rev. Francis J Marini, J.D., J.C.O.D., Chancellor & Vicar for Administrative and Canonical Services at the direction of Bishop Doueihi. The Protocol number of his letter to me is 490/3/00. Please note the following:

1) Bishop Doueihi had no recollection of ever making this statement attributed to him.
2) Bishop Doueihi denied the knowledge of any context in which this statement may have been made.
3) The letter further explained the phrase, “old Latin texts,” and denied that any mistranslation had ever occurred in a Maronite sacramental form.
4) The letter denied that the Maronite liturgy has ever used the word “all” in place “many” in any sacramental form.

I then placed a telephone call to Fr. Richard Saad who at that time was a parish priest in Birmingham, Alabama at St. Elias Maronite Catholic Church.
1) Fr. Saad admitted to having very limited knowledge on the history of the Maronite liturgy.
2) Fr. Saad could not remember the specific quote attributed to him but recalled corresponding with a “priest in Texas” on the subject. Regarding the “subject,” Fr. Saad would not admit that the he said the quote attributed to him and he could not explain exactly to what the quotation refered.
3) Fr. Saad agreed with the opinion expressed in the Bishop Doueihi's letter that was read to him.
4) Fr. Saad said that he would defer to the liturgical opinions of Bishop Doueihi and Fr. Awad, which were cited to him.
5) Fr. Saad was not interested in any further discussion on this subject nor was he interested in receiving a copy of Bishop Doueihi's letter for his own reference.

I was satisfied that this claim regarding the Maronite liturgy having used a form of consecration which used the word “all” in place of “many” is entirely false. The letter's contents were posted on a discussion group hosted Michael Malone and I think Mr. Miller was one of the moderators of the site. Michael Malone contacted me requesting that I mail him a copy since his computer was unable to view the HP scanned image I submitted for posting. My communication with Michael Malone gave me the impression that he was the source of the quotations provided to Mr. Miller. Where he obtained them I do not know. Once being informed regarding the contents of the letter he made no further reply to me on the matter.

Bishop Doueihi is retired but still living and, as far as I know, Fr. Saad is still in Alabama. You can contact them as well, and so could have Mr. Miller. I do not know Mr. Miller and as far as the other citations from Malone, I do not know anything about them or is it clear what they exactly refer to.

You apparently think the Pope has the authority to do anything he wants touching upon the sacramental substance and the immemorial traditional rites, even to the point of approving putting a lie in the mouth of God for when the priest consecrates at the altar he is acting in the person of Christ. Christ, who instituted the sacrament said "many." He did not say "all." The words do not have the same meaning and therefore they do not have the same referent. The immemorial Roman rite of Mass and the sacramental substances are not simple matters of discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. I also think that the sacramental theology that calls for sacramental signification to be supplied to the sacramental substance rather than coming from the form and matter is a false theology that would lead to the destruction of every sacrament. We disagree on these fundamental principles. That being the case, there is really no grounds for any profitable discussion.

I hope at least that you will not make a reference to this claim of Mr. Miller regarding the Maronite anaphora again. Mr. Miller said that this "fact" was his strongest argument in making his case.

Mac

columba Sat May 12, 2012 10:49 am

George, I know this exchange of ours is an exrcise in futility and this reponse I make is for the purpose of defending the Faith in general as opposed to defending myself against accusations of apostasy.

George Brenner wrote:
Columba, You do understand what you are doing to God and Church. I read thoroughly this post and your sources.

But you've made no mention as to whether or not you agree that the quotes I used are the genuine words of saints, Doctors, theologians, popes, and encyclopedias.
I know them to be genuine. Do you disagree?

George Brenner wrote:
You must realize that what we believe to be true, whether in thought, speech or the written word is known to God.

With all due respect George I've known from my earliest years that God knows our thoughts and words even before we have formed them but what this has to do with the "Many" or All" debate I do not know.

George Brenner wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that the written posts by myself and others will not help you since your heart has become hardened.

On the contrary, these exchanges have helped me greatly. I can see more clearly than ever that that which began as Catholic intuition on my part is indeed the genuine Catholic teaching on the sacraments. If you take the time to read mac's latest post I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion (providing of course your own heart hasn't become incurably hardened).

George Brenner wrote:
It is all about you isn't it?

I've no doubt that there is much of the "me" involved in everything I do or say. By the grace of God when I overcome this I will all be A saint. Thankfully There is none of the "me" involved in what the Church teaches.
I have been proved wrong many times before and have eaten much humble pie in the process of becoming a Catholic with conviction as opposed to the neo-con who followed every inovation; selling his faith for the grand prize of remainng friends with everyone.

I still may have to eat more humble pie if MRyan is correct concerning the new order of ordination and its unquestionable validity. He provided a good initial defense of this which I've taken onboard and I'm sincerely hoping that in this particular case he is correct. My doubts in this area have not solidified into conviction and I hope mac will hang around a while when this is discussed more thoroughly.
Mike has already informed me that he doesn't appreciate any appeal to the "Sensus Catholicus" and much prefers that all involved should know the A to Z of every papal bull and every theological work ever published since the year dot. However without a "Sensus Catholicus" there would be no questioning of Luther never mind those suspicious teachings promoted within the true Church itself. I've much yet to resolve concerning this "true Church" default position as being absolute fact but that's not for this thread.

George Brenner wrote:
Columba, you have said to God : " With regards to the NO Mass, its validity or otherwise is no concern of mine " Really, NO concern of yours. Well it is a concern to God, Church, The Pope and true Catholics.

I take it that you are classing yourself in the "true Catholic" category? If so then you above all should be concerned that you attend a mass where a doubtfully valid signification was permitted to be used. It is precisely the lack of power or authority on my part to change anything that makes it no concern of mine. The best I can do is to stay away from it and all the abuses that stem from it. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all.

George Brenner wrote:
Columba , you go on to say: " It is the duty of every Catholic to treat the Holy Eucharist with utmost respect." and have repeatedly said that you doubt that the Novus Ordo Mass has been valid. You have told Jesus that He has not been present in the Eucharist; so by your own words you have treated the Holy Eucharist with the utmost disrespect by your denial before God and Church of the real presence.

Goerge, you judge me according to your own standards, not God's.
If Our Lord is not present in the bread and wine due to the invalidity of the words of consecration, then nothing you can say or do can make Him present and no amount of wishful thinking can do so. The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is brought about by the words of consecration, not by the collective intention of the priest and the people. You obviously do not accept this as true. By appealing to those who imposed the new mass to validate its authenticity is putting the horse before the cart. The appeal must be made to the Traditional teaching of the Church to which the sacraments belong. (again, read mac's post and compare with what you and Mike falsely believe).

George Brenner wrote:
You Columba charge our recent Popes of heresy. So cast your stones. State specifically your most egregious charges of heresy. Let those charges be
known to God and church. All these endless posts and you have only become more and more removed from the Catholic Church.

The charges of heresy are not made by me but by the Church herself regarding popes who contradict her infallible teachings.
If you believe that the Church you belong to subsists in some new wider Church of the 20th and 21st centuries then you do not belong to the same Catholic Church which St. Peter and the apostles belonged. If you don't believe in this kind of church then you don't belong to the same Church as Benedict XVI.

Judge for yourself as to who has removed themselves from the Catholic Church.

George Brenner Sat May 12, 2012 9:19 pm

Columba said:
But you've made no mention as to whether or not you agree that the quotes I used are the genuine words of saints, Doctors, theologians, popes, and encyclopedias.
I know them to be genuine. Do you disagree?

George/Reply:
Columba, I do not dispute your quotes are genuine. I do utterly reject that any of these Saints, Doctors, Theologians, Popes and books are accusing Our recent Popes collectively or individually of Heresy. That falls squarely on your head as accuser and not those that you have quoted.

Columba said: With all due respect George I've known from my earliest years that God knows our thoughts and words even before we have formed them but what this has to do with the "Many" or All" debate I do not know.

George/Reply
I was not referring specifically to the "ALL" or "MANY" topic but more of a fact that many do not always write sincerely the same thoughts that they hold in their hearts and minds. In fact I would go so far as to say many people are phonies to one degree or another. I consider that your posts are sincere. I know you have doubted some of mine; but then you doubt too many things.

Columba said: On the contrary, these exchanges have helped me greatly. I can see more clearly than ever that that which began as Catholic intuition on my part is indeed the genuine Catholic teaching on the sacraments. If you take the time to read mac's latest post I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion (providing of course your own heart hasn't become incurably hardened)

George/Reply
Columba, the posts from Mac are brand new to the forum or at least brand new to me. I am not sure if he has posted in the past. I did not see him listed as a new member.
I would rather that He and MRyan further develop their exchanges. Mac certainly has many references and contacts that he uses to develop his thoughts and convictions. My early thoughts are that Mac is of the Novus Ordo Mass is not valid persuasion. If that be true, that is indeed sad. Until I hear his comments on the twenty minute explanation available on you tube on "Many" and "ALL" by Cardinal Arinze, I will not now comment further on him just yet.

Columba said: I still may have to eat more humble pie if MRyan is correct concerning the new order of ordination and its unquestionable validity. He provided a good initial defense of this which I've taken onboard and I'm sincerely hoping that in this particular case he is correct. My doubts in this area have not solidified into conviction and I hope mac will hang around a while when this is discussed more thoroughly.

George/Reply
Could it be without Ordination being valid you will personally be out of Priests soon?
And so we pray........

Columba said:I take it that you are classing yourself in the "true Catholic" category? If so then you above all should be concerned that you attend a mass where a doubtfully valid signification was permitted to be used. It is precisely the lack of power or authority on my part to change anything that makes it no concern of mine. The best I can do is to stay away from it and all the abuses that stem from it. A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all.

George/Reply

Dear Jesus, you know that I have prayed for many decades for the return of the word "Many" to the Eucharist. I always believed that "Many" was the exact word that You had used with Your Apostles. I believed it to be the faithful accurate word that should be used for Consecration. Jesus, you also know that I never in my most heartfelt thoughts ever thought that I would live to see the return of "Many" and "Blessed" to the Novus Ordo Mass. A miracle for me to be sure. Jesus , you also know my deepest thoughts on the beauty of the Latin Rite along with the adoration and dignity associated with it that is due to You for dying for our sins. Jesus, you also know my thoughts on the abuses and non pious liberties taken by many in the Novus Ordo Mass. Jesus if "Many" can be returned to the Consecration in such short order, I pray that all Masses may be said with proper dignity and liturgical reverence as you deserve. These abuses which have included everything from clerical disrespect to immodesty must be corrected. I find it ironic that I must defend the use of the word "All" in the Consecration in light of my life long prayer to return to "Many." In my heart, I know that the continuous sacrifice of the Mass was not denied to countless millions and "All" was unquestionably valid with absolutely no doubts as taught by Holy Mother Church.

Columba said: The charges of heresy are not made by me but by the Church herself regarding popes who contradict her infallible teachings.
If you believe that the Church you belong to subsists in some new wider Church of the 20th and 21st centuries then you do not belong to the same Catholic Church which St. Peter and the apostles belonged. If you don't believe in this kind of church then you don't belong to the same Church as Benedict XVI.

George/Reply:

No Columba, the Church has not made any charges of Heresy. You make those charges yourself. For the third time state your heretical charges? We pray for SSPX to be completely reunited to the Church not the other way around. No I do not believe that the One, Holy, Catholic Church subsists in some new wider Church. I pray that all non Catholics may find truth and accept and believe in the Catholic Church from which they find themselves outside. And once again your comments on Our Holy Father are not befitting someone who aspires to be a Saint. I pray and hope that you do become a Saint. Buy a compass.

Still your friend after all these posts,

JMJ,

George

MRyan Sat May 12, 2012 9:29 pm

columba wrote:
Again it's so good we have you Mike; a true theological expert who tried to tell mac he hadn't read the books he was quoting from only to find he had conversed with the authors themselves revealing the truth of his argument and refuting you in your own hubristic ignorance. I'm not one to gloat but mac may well be an angel sent from heaven to teach you some humility for which you will one day be eternally thankful.

I moved your comments to this thread, where they belong. I'll deal with your other comments another time, but let's set the record straight.

Actually, I told Mac that it does not appear that he read Adam Miller's book "Is the New Mass of Pope Pius VI Invalid", which Mac confirmed and then qualified by saying “I have not read Adam Millers book as published. But I did read a pre-publication draft and was asked to comment on it”.

The reason I suspected that he had not read the book was not gleaned only from the Maronite form controversy, but from his apparent lack of familiarity with the book in its entirety, to include an updated Appendum. It appears I was right, though I appreciate the fact that Mac at least read a pre-publication draft.

My edition of the book is copyrighted 2006, and Adam Miller had plenty of opportunity to correct whatever faulty citations he attributes to Fr. Saad and Bishop Doueihi before the book went to publication. I have always maintained that I would welcome any evidence that disputes the citations of Miller on the Maronite anaphora, and it appears Mac did his homework, which I actually appreciate.

Though the instincts of Tornpage, who questioned why Miller appears to be the only one to have discovered this anaphora – appear to be sound; to date, I simply had no hard reason to suspect that Adam Miller’s citations were less than credible. In fact, I am equally puzzled why Mac's revelations are not more widely known ... especially when they predate the 2006 edition of Miller's book by several years.

Miller's citation attributed to Bishop Doueihi appears to be a direct first-hand quotation, while the citation attributed to Fr. Saad is “from a private correspondence with an associate of the author” (which corroborates what Mac said, with Fr. Saad saying he “could not remember the specific quote attributed to him but recalled corresponding with a ‘priest in Texas’ on the subject.”)

If he “corresponded” with the priest in writing, Miller should have the written corroboration of his cited words. Does he? I have no idea; perhaps I can find out.

However, the letter from Rev. Francis J Marini, written at the direction of Bishop Doueihi, denying “that the Maronite liturgy has ever used the word ‘all’ in place ‘many’ in any sacramental form”, is troubling indeed (for Miller), and places Miller’s citations in serious doubt, to say the very least.

But tell me, Columba, how does this amount to “hubristic ignorance” on my part for citing direct citations from an author with a Masters in sacred theology who put his Catholic name and reputation on the line when he had his work published as a book (and not just the unusual out-of-context second/third hand citations we are used to on forums)?

As you jump up and down in gloat-less glee in excited anticipation that Mac is going to best me in the “debate” by "proving" that "for all" invalidates the Sacrament, you have another thing coming. I have the Magisterium, Christ’s promise and actual sacramental theology (as the Church understands it) on my side, Mac has the unqualified opinion of a very intelligent layman who still got it wrong. Guess who is going to “win”?

Mac, as I will soon address, twists my (and Miller’s) arguments, attributes to me things I never said, gets his fact wrong, and has a severely flawed understanding of sacramental theology. Hmmmm.

And I will demonstrate all of the above in due time. Stay tuned.

MRyan Sat May 12, 2012 10:15 pm

columba wrote:
I still may have to eat more humble pie if MRyan is correct concerning the new order of ordination and its unquestionable validity. He provided a good initial defense of this which I've taken onboard and I'm sincerely hoping that in this particular case he is correct. My doubts in this area have not solidified into conviction and I hope mac will hang around a while when this is discussed more thoroughly.

"Humble pie" should never never into the picture. If I am ever proven wrong on any point of doctrine, and I have been, I will not hesitate to correct my error. We follow the truth where it leads us - and the Source of all truth has guaranteed that the Truth shall be preserved and taught by the Holy See which shall remain without blemish or corruption of doctrine. If we cannot be certain of that, we truly have been left to the tempest of the seas without anyone to calm the waters with the supreme authority and unfailing Faith willed by Christ.

I am happy to report that Jacob Michael's reply to Rev. Anthony Cekada's
2006 pamphlet on the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration (entitled Absolutely Null and Utterly Void) is back on line, and can be found in the link below. Bookmark it; copy it - its very good.

http://www.pugiofidei.com/validity.htm

tornpage Sun May 13, 2012 12:00 am

My, my, my, isn't this interesting?

And the non-resident apostate will be damned. Very Happy

tornpage Sun May 13, 2012 12:07 am

Those remarks are not directed in any way towards Mike, btw. He was only making natural and allowable assumptions.

When it comes to the truth of any of this stuff, I make none - assumptions in favor of the Church, or anyone who defends its position(s), that is.

MRyan Sun May 13, 2012 7:40 pm

Mac wrote:
I hope at least that you will not make a reference to this claim of Mr. Miller regarding the Maronite anaphora again. Mr. Miller said that this "fact" was his strongest argument in making his case.

Mac,

Rest assured that I will no longer be making reference to Miller's claim without further substantiation and reconciliation; and as it is, I don't see it coming. I suspect Miller will stand by his citations, but I can no longer consider them reliable.

Yes, Miller said the Maronite Anaphora was "Maybe" the "most damaging to the anti-'for all' advocates", but it is certainly not the only damaging evidence that discredits their claims against the validity of "for all", as I will continue to demonstrate.

Again, THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST (“Taken from: ‘The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the Church of Malabar,’ 1859; by Father J. M. Neale”); the wording is:

"THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: TAKE, DRINK YE OF IT: THIS IS SHED FORTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, FOR THE EXPIATION OF TRANSGRESSIONS, THE REMISSION OF SINS TO ALL THAT BELIEVE IN HIM FOR EVER AND EVER".

Not only does “to all that believe in Him forever and ever” refute the claim that “all” has never been used in an approved Anaphora (in addition to THE ANAPHORA OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST: “DRINK YE ALL OF IT, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS OF YOU AND OF ALL THE TRUE FAITHFUL, AND FOR ETERNAL LIFE"); as you know, the additional words provide further clarification as to its signification and tell us exactly the mind of the Church when using "for all", as the Holy Office, with the Pope's explicit approval, confirmed.

However, “to all that believe in him forever and ever” does not clearly signify the “elect”, for whom the Blood is efficacious, as you allege it must; for not “all of those who believe in Him forever and ever” are among the many (the faithful elect) for whom the Blood is (or will be) efficacious.

Neither does "for all" necessarily signify a universal sufficiency, especially given the context of its setting (ex adjunctis) within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself; and only the Faithful can partake of and benefit from its fruit - the Eucharist; so, the fact that not all will receive the benefits of His death is clearly understood.

Furthermore,

The sedevacantists also argue that the form must express the “res sacramenti,” that is, the reality of the sacrament, which St. Thomas explains is union with the Mystical Body (ST, III, Q 73, Arts 3 and 6). The sedevacantists argue that “for all” does not communicate union with the Mystical Body because it includes those outside the Body. However, they misread St. Thomas who says that the “reality” of the sacrament is the “effect” of the sacrament (ST, III, Q 73, Art 3).

That is, the effect of the sacrament – which is union with the Mystical Body – principally occurs during Holy Communion, not during the words of consecration. The reality of the union with the Mystical Body does not concern the form of consecration but happens during the reception of Christ’s true body and blood, which is the sacrament itself. (“For many” versus “For all”: Is the Novus Ordo consecration valid? By John Salza, J.D.)

As Salza also admits (and I do not agree with his arguments which place "doubt" on the validity of "for all" - he never once references the authentic living Magisterium):

It is true that Pope Benedict XIV taught in De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio that “many” can mean “all” in the context of Christ’s atoning work. As we have maintained, God grants “all” sufficient grace for salvation, and “many” among the “all” are saved. Theologically speaking, the sufficiency and efficacy of the atonement are co-relative truths.

In fact, I would say they are as co-relative as the universal and particular wills of God (predestination), the latter of which is simply the concrete manifestation of the former, and they are inseparable -- for there is in reality only one will of God, to bring salvation to all men, but not all men will receive the benefits of His death.

Along the same lines:

How is this change [for many' (pro multis) to 'for all'] justified?

In the Greek, the word that is used is polus (polus) which means 'many, much, large'.

How then is the change justified?

To answer that we need to look at what Jesus was about to undergo.

Did Jesus die on the cross only for the elect, or did he die for all?

According to Trent, Jesus died 'for our sins, and not only for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world'.

In fact, Trent cites II Corinthians 5:15 which says that Jesus died for all.

Trent further acknowledges that not all will receive the benefits of his death.

Yet, if Jesus died for all, then his Blood was shed for all. Thus, the Tridentine formula, 'pro multis effundetur' reflects the results but not the intent.

The Vatican II [ICEL] formulation ('for all') reflects the intent as opposed to the results. That is, Jesus died for all, but not all accept the benefits of his death.

We now come to the crux of the matter.

What are the essential words, the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist?

St. Justin Martyr says the words that effect the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus are 'This is my Body' and 'This is my Blood'.

St. John Chrysostom refers to the bread ('This is my Body') but does not refer to the consecration of the wine.

St. Ambrose of Milan follows the lead of St. Justin Martyr.

Other Fathers of the Church considered the epiclesis as the form (St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem) while still others refer to the Prayer of blessing or what we would call the Eucharistic Prayer.

In the anaphora, an early Eucharistic Prayer from The Apostolic Tradition, we find the first recorded Eucharistic Prayer.

The words of institution used there are 'This is my Body' and 'This is my Blood which is poured out for you'.

Now, assuming that the Eucharist was validly confected by these earlier Masses, we must reduce the 'form' to the words that are found in common.

Thus, the 'form' of the Eucharist must be 'This is my Body' and 'This is my Blood'.

As long as these words are said, assuming proper intention and that the one saying them is a validly ordained Priest, the confection of the Eucharist takes place.

(Ed Faulk, On the Validity of the Mass of Paul VI (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/valmass.html)

Btw, the very same Catechism of the Council of Trent that tells us why “for all” is not used in the approved Roman rite (but it does not mean to suggest that it cannot be used), also teaches that the short form suffices for transubstantiation (meaning that the short form must signify the fruit of the sacrament); and, as was just demonstrated, this must be so unless anyone would like to invalidate the following Eucharistic Prayers and Liturgies:

Eucharistic Prayer of the ancient St. Hippolytus: “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, you perform my memorial.”

Here are a couple of Old Liturgies finds of recent history of Egyptian liturgies. The Sacramentary of Serapion, written about 353-356 AD by Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, a colleague of both St. Athanasius, and of St. Anthony gives us an ancient liturgical text, and following that a Deir Balizeh manuscript that goes back to the third century:

We have offered also the cup, the likeness of the blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his disciples, ‘Take ye, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is being shed for you for remission of sins.’”

”Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had blessed it and had drunk, he gave it to them saying, Take, drink all of it. This is my blood which is being shed for you unto remission of sins.”

The following Oriental Liturgies in use today (and also way before Vatican II) have the following consecrations, the Catholic Ethiopian Rite and the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites:

“And likewise also the cup giving thanks, he blessed it, and hallowed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said unto them, Take, drink, this is my blood (pointing and bowing profoundly), which is shed for you for the remission of sins.”

Take, drink this cup: my blood it is, which is shed for you for the remission of sin.”

Whitehead and Likoudis in the same book give us further points:

A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form of the consecration are not to be found.

Scholars studying the Eastern rites can point to many anaphoras, or Eucharistic prayers, which do not include the “for many.” The “For many” is included in the contemporary liturgy of almost all of the Eastern rites or churches today (except the Ethiopian); but the fact that it has not always and everywhere been included in rites whose validity the Catholic Church has never questioned or doubted, amply demonstrates that it is not essential for validity. And whether it is essential has been precisely the question we are concerned with there. [10] (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html)

That’s enough, for now.

George Brenner Sun May 13, 2012 9:12 pm

When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you (God) thanks and praise,
gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all
so that sins MAY BE forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.

May be is a verb phrase meaning "might be" or "could be and is not same as use of will or shall be

Cardinal Arinze speaks........

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

Sponsored content