The Mass Of All Time?!?

[cmotherofpirl]

In the approved English translation of the Missal of Pope Paul

VI, the following words are used for the consecration of the

wine: "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."[1]

The words "for all" have been the source of some controversy

since the Latin text promulgated by Paul VI, mirroring the

Tridentine text, reads "pro multis" ("for many"). Two issues

must therefore be considered. First, does the rendering "for

all" affect the validity of the Mass? Second, are there good

justifications for using the phrase "for all"?

1. Does the rendering "for all" affect the validity of the Mass?

The Church scrutinizes proposed vernacular translations very

carefully before approving them. An instructive explanation of

the procedure used is provided in 'Instauratio Liturgica', a

declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith[2].

It explains that "[t]he liturgical reform... 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."

Before a vernacular translation is approved by the Holy See, the

Congregation "examines it carefully" before giving confirmation

that "it expresses the meaning intended by the Church". When

such confirmation is given, the approved text "must be

understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as

expressed in the original Latin text."

Since the English and Italian translations of the Mass (which

both use the "for all" variant) have received this confirmation,

we should be satisfied that they are valid formulas for the

celebration of the Eucharist. When some doubts about this matter

were expressed, the Congregation for Divine Worship confirmed

that "the variant involved is fully justified" and that "in the

approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text

nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or

emendation."[3] Further, Catholics may look to the fact that

Pope John Paul II uses both the English and Italian translations

in celebrating the Mass - the Vicar of Christ clearly does not

doubt their validity.

Nonetheless, some continue to assert that the rendition "for

all" invalidates the Mass. Common teaching asserts that to

constitute a sacrament it is necessary to have the proper

matter, proper form and a qualified minister who intends to do

what the Church does.[4] There is no doubt here that wheat bread

and grape wine are the matter to be used and that the minister

must be a validly ordained priest. The question in issue is

whether the words "for many" are an essential part of the form

to be used in the celebration of the Eucharist.

The words of institution that St Paul reports are, "This is my

body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me...This cup

is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink

it, in remembrance of me" (I Cor. 11:24-25). If anything further

than these words (which clearly signify that the bread and wine

are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ) were needed to

confect the Eucharist, it is unthinkable that St Paul, writing

about the year 57 before the canonical Gospels[5], should omit

them.

We find a similar testimony in the writings of the Fathers. St

Justin Martyr, for example, affirms that the bread and wine are

changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the power of Jesus'

words. The only words he reports are: "This do ye in remembrance

of Me, this is My body...This is My blood".[6] In the same

manner St John Damascene writes, "God said, 'This is My body',

and 'This is My blood'... And so it is at His omnipotent command

until He come."[7]

For further confirmation, it is useful to refer to the various

catechetical texts which the Church has approved throughout her

history. The first such text is the 'Roman Catechism' issued in

1566. This Catechism provides the following as the proper form

for the consecration of the wine: "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." It does not follow, however, that all of these words must

be regarded as essential since the text goes on to assert that

the "form to be used (in the consecration) of this element,

evidently consists of those words which signify that the

substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord."[8]

We read in the 'Catechism of St Pius X' that "[t]he consecration

is the renewal, by means of the priest, of the miracle wrought

by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, of changing bread and wine

into His adorable Body and Blood by saying: 'This is My Body:

This is My Blood.'"[9] No further words are cited as necessary.

Finally, the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (which Pope John

Paul II declared to be a "sure norm for teaching the faith"[10])

teaches that the "essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament

are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the

Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of

consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: 'This is my

body which will be given up for you... This is the cup of my

blood'."[11]

We can see clearly, then, that the only words necessary for

validity are the words needed to signify the change in the

elements of bread and wine. Since the phrase "for many" is not

necessary to signify the change in the wine, it should not be

considered necessary for validity.

2. Are there good justifications for the rendering "for all"?

Commenting on this issue, the Congregation for Divine Worship

states that "According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated

in Latin by 'pro multis' has as its meaning 'for all': the many

for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to

saying "Christ has died for all."[12] Some commentators reject

this exegetical comment a priori because the exegete most often

cited in favour of the "for all" variant is the Protestant

writer J. Jeremias. Such prejudice is unjustified: it is quite

proper for Catholics to use whatever techniques advance a fuller

understanding of Biblical texts.[13]

We read in scripture that the Messiah "bore the sin of many

[Hebr. 'rabbim']" (Is. 53:12) and that He carried "the iniquity

of us all [Hebr. 'kulanu']" (Is. 53:6). These two verses state

the same fact - one using the word "many", the other using

"all". Clearly, then, the Hebrew word 'rabbim' (usually

translated as "many") can mean "all." The Aramaic 'saggi'in',

which is used to translate 'rabbim' in the Targums, carries a

similar meaning.[14]

We may also look at the Greek text where Jesus states that His

blood "will be shed for you and for many [Gk 'pollon']" (Mt

26:28). A leading Catholic reference on New Testament Greek

notes that in Semitic usage this word does not exclude the

totality.[15] This is illustrated by Jesus' words: "Many [Gk

'polloi'] are called but few are chosen" (Mt 22:14). Here, the

word "many" must mean "all" since we know that the offer of

salvation is made to all: God "desires all men to be saved" (I

Tim 2:4).

We must conclude, therefore, that there are good arguments to

justify the translation "for all" which are rooted in the

Biblical languages. Whether or not it is the best translation is

a matter for further study and debate (the present author would

prefer the translation "for many" but accepts "for all" as a

possible and approved translation). In the meantime, confident

that the competent authorities have approved this variant and

that it does not affect the validity of the Mass, the faithful

may attend Mass without doubting the validity of the vernacular

translations.

Endnotes

[1] English translation of The Roman Missal, International

Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1970

[2] Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,

Dichiarazione riguardante le traduzioni delle formule

sacramentali: Instauratio liturgica (25 January 1974), AAS 66

(1974) 661

[3] Notitiae 6 (1970) 39-40, n. 28

[4] see, e.g., Catechism of St Pius X, The Nature of the

Sacraments, q.6

[5] see Introduction to the Books of the New Testament in "The

Navarre Bible: St Mark", 2nd ed., Dublin: Four Courts Press,

1992 at p. 28

[6] St Justin Martyr, First Apology, lxvi

[7] St John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, iv, xiii

[8] Roman Catechism, The Holy Eucharist

[9] ibid., The Blessed Eucharist, q.11

[10] John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum (11

October 1992), AAS 86 (1994) 113

[11] Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], n. 1412 (ellipsis

in original)

[12] n. 3 above

[13] see Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Divino Afflante Spiritu (30

September 1943), AAS 35 (1943) 314

[14] This argument is drawn entirely from Most, W., Validity of

Mass and Sacraments,

<http://www.petersnet.net/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=187> and

Most, W., Review of "The Problem of the New Mass",

<http://www.petersnet.net/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=124>

[15] Zerwick, M. and Grosvenor, M., A Grammatical Analysis of

the Greek New Testament, 5th ed., Rome: Editrice Pontificio

Istituto Biblico, 1996 at p. 87

[cmotherofpirl]

All is forgiven, of course. And I congratulate you, for unlike C-Mom, you recognized that for your own sake you needed to withdraw.

Don't worry mark you will never get only conversation with me, only prayers.

[cmotherofpirl]

THis is from EWTN

Reverend Robert A. Skeris reviews:

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Its Problems and Background by Klaus

Gamber (tr. K. D. Grimm). Una Voce Press, San Juan Capistrano, CA. 198

pages, $19.95.

Pro captu lectoris, habent sua fata libelli. Ever since Terentianus Maurus

recorded this sententia in late antiquity, it has applied as well to

authors, whose fate, like that of their writings, depends upon the

capacity of their readers. Klaus Gamber's book bears this out, for it has

been received in widely differing ways. Some found the work not only

stimulating and worthy of reflection, but moving and prayerful, inDouche an

"amazing book" of "enormous significance," perhaps "the most important book

written in the last 15 years regarding the call for the reform of the Novus

Ordo liturgy and the reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass."

Others, though, are less enthusiastic, and in fact have serious

reservations, judging that the inconsistencies and criticisms contained in

"what comes off like an incessant barrage of rantings, often confused and

confusing" are, at least in the long run, neither healthy nor helpful,

since Part I of the book (at least) is "an unrelenting attack on the

liturgical reforms not only following Vatican II but also leading up to

it, starting with those of Pope St. Pius X."

Klaus Gamber (from 1962) was head of the liturgical institute, originally

founded at Regensburg under Archbishop-Bishop Michael Buchberger in 1957

to conduct and promote research in the areas of liturgical studies and the

history of Benedictine monasticism in the diocese of Regensburg, in order

to make the results of this scientific work fruitful for practical pastoral

work.

Gamber edited (often in collaboration with other scholars) the series of

monographs entitled Studia Patristica et Liturgica (18 volumes), fifteen

volumes of Textus Patristici et Liturgici, and 26 other volumes

supplementary to both series. His specialty was palaeography, the study of

ancient manuscripts, which he learned under the guidance of Benedictine

Father Alban Dold, the pioneer of fluorescent palimpsest photography. (A

palimpsest is a leather or parchment manuscript which has been re-used

after the original writing has been scraped away or erased. Since the

original writing was seldom completely eradicated, it can often be read,

at least in part. Some palimpsests can therefore have great value for the

specialist palaeographer.) Gamber did his first scientific work in

"collecting fragments" at the palimpsest institute which Dold had headed

since 1917 at the Archabbey of Beuron/Hohenzollern. Like his master,

Gamber was a self-taught man. (After eighteen years of private work on a

thesis about the authorship of the ancient treatise De Sacramentis

commonly attributed to Saint Ambrose, Gamber received his S.T.D., not from

a West German university, but from a communist-bloc country, the

theological faculty of the University of Budapest [Fr. Polykarp Rado,

O.S.B.], which caused a minor sensation in 1967.)

Specialists in manuscript studies must often deal with fragments, and the

title of the Festschrift presented to Alban Dold on his seventieth

birthday in 1952 was in fact Colligere Fragmenta. It is not surprising

that Gamber's work was often criticized for drawing broad hypothetical

conclusions from very scanty (often literally "fragmentary") evidence. All

of these factors should be borne in mind when approaching this author and

his work, which represents a notable achievement by any standards.

The English volume contains a preliminary section with a preface by Father

Gerard Calvet, O.S.B., of Le Barroux, and two other brief pieces. To mark

Gamber's seventieth birthday in 1989, a group of friends and colleagues

had prepared a Festschrift containing, in addition to fourteen scholarly

articles, brief congratulatory messages from several cardinals and bishops.

Since the honoree had gone to his reward before the Festschrift was

published, it became, perforce, a memorial volume: W. Nyssen, ed.,

Simandron-Schriftenreihe Koinonia-Oriens 30 (Koln 1989). The memorial

tribute of Bishop Braun of Eichstatt (pp. 20-21 in Simandron) becomes in

English, a "preface" at pp. xv-xvi, but omits the second sentence of the

German original, without indicating that this has been done, thus creating

the impression that the episcopal "preface" (untitled in the original) was

written specifically for this English volume or its (Italian ?) source.

The sentence omitted reads: "The memorial volume for him offers me a

welcome opportunity for a word of greeting and of thanks."

Editor W. Nyssen's memorial article at pp. 23-27 of Simandron is headed

"testimonial" in English (pp. xi-xiii); in it (p. xiii) the citation of

Cardinal Ratzinger is imprecise and hence misleading... wirklich aus der

gottesdienstlichen Mitte der Kirche denkt means "truly thinks out of the

worshipping heart or center of the Church," which is something other than

"truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church."

Gamber, and not the "liturgical thinking of the center," is the subject of

the sentence... And one wonders why the last sentence of Nyssen's memorial

appreciation is reproduced only partially? Did an anonymous editor do the

trimming? The complete sentence reads: "In the midst of the diligent

search for sensations in the Church of our days, his lonely path of

sacrifice has now come to a sudden end."

A propos translation: while the thoughtful theologian noted only three

typos, he encountered more than a dozen "opaque" passages and inaccuracies,

some of them perhaps caused by unfamiliarity with the technical terminology

occasionally used by the author.

The introductory pages vii-xvi are followed by the two main parts of the

book, each of them representing a separate treatise by Monsignor Gamber.

Part I, whose title was given to the English volume as a whole, was

published as a pamphlet in 1979. Those of us who actively supported the

German Una Voce from its early days in Berlin/Schoneberg, where the late

Albert Tinz published its Rundbrief from the Kufsteiner Strasse as

mimeographed circular letters, recognize the chapters of this section as a

number of earlier articles originally published in other places, chiefly in

the Una Voce Korrespondenz (UVK). Thus, for example, Chapter 2 - UVK 5

(1975) 142-51; Chapter 3 - UVK 6 (1976) 298-301; Chapter 4 WK 7 (1977) 88-

96; Chapter 7 - UVK 4 (1974) 283-7; Chapter 10 - UVK 2 (1972) 1-9 etc.

Part II was published in 1987 as a brochure Zum Hern hin! intended for the

general reader as a kind of commentary on the problems presented by the

modern altar and celebration facing the people. It was occasioned by an

exchange of letters to the editor of a German Catholic weekly, Deutsche

Tagespost, and once again combines earlier articles with new materials.

In short, the book we have before us is not a systematic treatment of its

subject, but rather a compilation of occasional pieces, some of them twenty

years old. Would it be wrong to see the principle of colligere fragmenta at

work here?

In spite of the handicaps implied by these facts, several important themes

recur throughout the book, and thus impart a certain unity. Among these

themes--all worthy of serious reflection and earnest discussion--the

legitimate liturgist notes:

* the <organic> development of symbol and ritual which has taken place in

the Ecclesia orans during the course of a millenium and more;

* the <Christocentric> character of the divine liturgy, in which with all

the warriors of the heavenly army we sing a hymn of glory to the Kyrios

(Sacrosanctum Concilium 8);

* the proper <orientation> for liturgical prayer by priest and people who

are together conversi ad Dominum (Saint Augustine).

There can be no doubt that this last aspect has attracted the lion's share

of attention since the publication of Gamber's book. Building upon the work

of predecessors and contemporaries like Joseph Jungmann, Cyrille Vogel,

Louis Bouyer, Walter Drig and Joseph Ratzinger, Gamber (in spite of the

view expressed in his Liturgie Ubermorgen p. 251 [Freiburg 1966]) has shown

that the oft-repeated claim that the early Christian altar as a rule pre-

supposed "orientation" toward the people, is a myth and nothing more (J. A.

Jungmann). Gamber's insistence on this point has not been entirely

ineffectual, as the editorial published a year ago in the official organ of

the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the

Sacraments clearly indicates (Notitiae 29, May 1993, pp. 245-249). In what

was surely intended as a response to this book, the sacred dicastery

asserts that the eastward position of celebrant and faithful, while "a

great tradition even if not an unanimous one," did not constitute an

indispensable element of the liturgy and so "cannot be considered a

tradition, fundamental principle in Christian liturgy." While striving to

justify the westward position currently so widespread, the congregation

also admits that it is "not an absolute value above and beyond all

others... The principle of the unicity of the altar is theologically more

important than the practice of celebrating versus populum." Non jam frustra

doces, Klaus Gamber! (See Sacred Music, Vol. 121, No. 1 [spring 1994], p.

19-26; Vol. 120, No. 4 [Winter 1993], p. 14-17.)

Those who knew Klaus Gamber personally, who benefited from his kind and

courteous hospitality to other scholars and researchers, can testify to his

fundamental attitude as a man of the Church. Quiet and reserved by nature,

he possessed a great diligence and a strong sense of responsibility which

prompted his efforts toward gaining a better insight into those "general

laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy," which the last

council calls for as a basic pre-supposition for any responsible discussion

and practical activity in liturgical reform and renewal (Sacrosanctum

Concilium 23).

Klaus Gamber was neither a traditionalist at any price, nor one who could

come to terms with the perhaps too hastily introduced reforms of the

liturgy after the last council. He was a "centrist" who by his researches

in the history of liturgy could prove that the liturgy was constantly

undergoing changes, that it did not congeal in cast-iron forms, but always

took full account of the men who prayed it. After all, the fathers of

Vatican II never dreamed that their reference to making the liturgical

signs more transparent, would open the doors to a new wave of rationalism.

And it was precisely such a rationalist attitude which Klaus Gamber opposed

as vigorously as he could. For that, we are all in his debt. But for our

part, we must exert ourselves to reach an appreciation of his motives and

his points of view. The legitimate liturgist is vexed at the witless ease

with which the ill-informed so readily over-simplify a complex situation,

and he cannot help but recall the words which a genial jurist wrote more

than half a century ago, for they apply as well to Klaus Gamber's book:

Have a care, my friend! This book is esoteric through and through, and its

immanent esotericism increases to the precise degree to which you penetrate

its pages. Therefore, better to leave hands off! Put it back again in its

place on the shelf! Touch it no more with your fingers, be they washed and

manicured, or stained with blood as is typical of the times. Wait and see

whether you will meet this book again, and whether you are one of those to

whom its secrets are revealed! The fata libellorum and the fata of their

readers are somehow mysteriously intertwined. I tell you that in all

friendship. Do not try to force your way into the arcarza, but wait until

you have been properly introduced and admitted. Otherwise, you might suffer

an attack of rage which would be harmful to your health, and you might

attempt to destroy something which is beyond all destructibility. That

would not be good for you. Therefore, hands off! and put the book back in

its place! Sincerely, your good friend, Benito Cereno.

[Good Friday]

The English translation of the Mass has been approved by the Vatican, Donna.

[littleflower+JMJ]

your the coolest CMom!! B)

+JMJ :D

[Good Friday]

I'm going to try to address this calmly. I really am. First Mark, then Donna.

Thanks for your post. My confessor will be surprised to hear I am no longer in Communion with the Church. So will the clergy I discussed this matter with before making my decision.

I mean this with respect to all clergymen, and it's just a question, not an accusation: But are the clergymen who you've discussed this matter with faithful to the Church? Do they share your views?

Your misapprehension is in assuming a continuity between the liturgy and worship of the last forty years with the Mass of All Time. I reckon such a statement is incomprehensible to you, and further proof of my lack of Communion. Perhaps in time you will find things out for yourself.

There is a continuity. Please, Mark, don't belittle us; we're not idiots just because we obey the Church. There is definite continuity between the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass. They are not the same, but they are similar in many ways (the important ways), and different in many ways.

Consider the documented tendency of the NO Mass to descend into irreverence and sacrilege. Consider that the majority of Catholics don't go to confession or believe in the Real Presence. Stir it all together and you have a sacramental mockery of our Savior. If that happens even once, it is too much. Realistically, it could be happening daily.

This "documented tendency" is a tendency of people to descend into irreverence and sacrilege. I would guess that if the Tridentine Mass were still the Mass of the Roman Rite, it would be suffering abuses now as well. Unorthodox and disobedient priests can find ways to abuse the liturgy in any form; so can unorthodox and disobedient laity. As for people not going to Confession or believing in the Real Presence, I agree with you that this is very disturbing. But it has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Mass. It is at this Mass that the priest says things like:

"This is my body, which will be given up for you."

"This is 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..."

"This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world..."

If people don't believe in the Real Presence anymore, the Novus Ordo Mass can hardly be accused. Perhaps we should look to the Tridentine Mass as the culprit. For years, when the above was said it was said in Latin, a language few people in America actually understood. They weren't hearing: "This is my body." They were hearing something that made no sense to them in Latin; that is, if they were hearing it at all while they were inappropriately praying their Rosary during Mass, or if the priest was speaking loudly enough.

I ask you to consider the possibility that someone dropped the ball during an era when the Tridentine Mass was still thriving. After all, all those people in the '60s didn't just magically turn into unorthodox and disbelieving heretics when they embraced the culture of death here in America. Somebody -- like perhaps their parents, every last one of whom attended a Tridentine Mass -- dropped the ball. Perhaps it was their inability to understand anything going on in the Mass that compelled so many to stop believing. Something certainly did it, and it was going on before the Novus Ordo Mass was even instituted. So explain that.

I was a Protestant too. Like you, I believe John Paul II is a validly elected pope. And I agree this is an important issue, although it was not my idea to talk about it; I got dragged into it because no one wanted to discuss my thread.

Mark, you know we can't discuss the Tridentine Mass without discussing the Novus Ordo, especially when you present it to us as you did in the beginning of the thread.

Persevere in prayer, pray especially for the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost. And try to find out a little bit more about the Church of the last 1,965 years.

I know a lot about the Church over the last 1,965 years. For instance, I know that the Sacrament of Reconciliation wasn't as widespread in the early Church as it is today. It was never done individually. This began in monasteries, and eventually it spread to the entire Church. I also know, from simply reading the Bible, that well into the time of St. Paul's ministry the Church was still celebrating the Mass at table, in the context of a community meal. What I know about the Church is that it is a Living Church for a Living God, ever-changing in her customs but steadfast in her doctrines. Rather than being a symbol of a dead Church as traditionalists have made it out to be, the Tridentine Mass is a perfect example of how the liturgy has changed throughout the millennia. Because the liturgy certainly didn't begin as the Tridentine Mass. Don't assume that because I disagree with your schismatic views -- and yes, I do believe they're schismatic -- that I'm an idiot and totally ignorant about Church history. That's not the case.

[Good Friday]

Now, to Donna's posts.

#1. The Novus Ordo Missae in Latin's Consecration of the wine is NOT the same as most English spoken Masses. The prime difference being:

Latin: "pro multis" (which will be shed for many)

English: "for all" (which will be shed for all)

As I have already mentioned, the Consecration has been approved by the Vatican. Christ's blood was shed for all.

a) In the decree "De Defectibus" (On Defects in Celebrating the Mass) of Paul IV he specifically brought up the consecration of the wine. "Now the words of consecration, which are the form of this sacrament..." etc; it is not "for all".

See, this is what I don't understand. When I use a Pope's teaching, Donna, you remind me that the Pope isn't always infallible. But then you come up with something like this, from a Pope who hasn't been the Pope for 444 years! Which is it, is the Pope's word holy writ or isn't it? Or is it only these past four Popes that you refuse to listen to?

a 2) "Thus, to translate pro multis as "for all men" represents a serious and completely unjustified break with tradition, particularly in view of the fact that the Catechism of the Council of Trent [an infallible Council]teaches that pro multis refers to the subjective redemption, and that for this reason the words "for all" (pro universis) were not used." (Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 625)

I refuse to even acknowledge the writings of Michael Davies. Bring me something from someone orthodox, and I might think about what you're saying. I trust the Pope and the Curia to know better than Michael Davies, better than you and Mark, and better than me whether or not he has broken with Tradition. He has, after all, had much more theological training than we have (I haven't had any... have you?).

There has been raging debate about this issue, it is not clear, the Holy See has NOT cleared it up, and so why is anyone surprised that there be doubts, positive or negative among any faithful, once they have this information?

Is it then your assertion that my Confirmation, and inDouche the Baptisms of many of the people here, are invalid? Is it your assertion that we have not been receiving Christ's Body and Blood? It sickens me, absolutely sickens me, that you think you know better than the Pope. Who are you to know better?

Now, will someone give me a reference ( hopefully from the recent Catechism) that defines the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a "discipline." Every reference I have -including the Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma - says anything but the Holy Mass being a dscipline. Certainly rubrics and ceremonies have changed.

It was the rubrics and ceremonies we've been referring to.

I would like to remind everyone -the faithful and scismatics alike- that the doctrine of papal infallibility applies ONLY to the Soverein Pontiff speaking EXCATHEDRA. This is the only area specifically protected. And it is this: that the infallible definition cannot fail.

Yes, but I wasn't speaking of papal infallibility. I should have been more clear. By speaking of the Second Vatican Council's role in the Novus Ordo Mass, and the role of three Popes, and the role of the vast majority of Bishops, I was referring to the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. The validity of the Novus Ordo Mass has become a teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and as such it cannot be an error.

This does not mean anything other than what I have written. Nathan, the Pope who excommunicated St. Athanasius certainly did err. And by this act he did "teach" something. I'm ONLY talking about that one example, I insinuate nothing. It is not Catholic to ascribe a general infallibility to everything any pope ever does. In my opinion, that borders on papolatry.

It is also not Catholic to question him at every turn. In my opinion, that borders on Protestantism. What y'all are doing also borders on Massolatry, in my opinion. I'm sorry, but Pope Paul IV has been dead for 444 years -- and you can't go back. There is only one Pope now, and he's the one you have to listen to.

Now, to any Catholic who takes seriously that "the law of prayer is the law of belief", and understands that the Holy Mass forms the faith of an individual, not the other way around; and that the Mass is a catechism so to speak, that person would be no good Catholic to not defend it. Maybe some have set it up as an idol god.

So we're all bad Catholics because we don't "defend" the Tridentine Mass? Can you explain to me how an inaudible Mass spoken in a dead language, where the faithful are more prone to praying the Rosary than participating in the Mass, is a catechism? What is it teaching us, exactly? "Let the priest do the work"? "You're totally irrelevant to this"? "You don't need to know what's going on"? "Just pray to Mary, we'll take care of praying to God for you"? I really would like to know how exactly the Tridentine Mass is supposed to be such a superior catechism to the Novus Ordo. Again, I can't understand the Tridentine Mass; I can understand the Novus Ordo. That, in and of itself, makes it a better catechism.

But here is the real heartbreak: that sincere Catholics really think that by upholding the old Mass, such people are ignoring the True Church and the True God. That is unbelievable! It is exactly the opposite.

The real heartbreaker is that two converts would disobey the Church like two Protestants.

[littleflower+JMJ]

bump

[Donna]

Hello, Nathan.

Just to end this part of the discussion, here is from the Trent Catechism, Page 227:

"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew and some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race...

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoke of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring forth the fruit of Salvation." (my emphasis).

Now: would it have been so very hard for the great Roman Catholic Churchmen to instead of letting a committee (the ICEL) mistranslate what Our Holy Mother has said to be the words of Christ, and then scoop up the mess afterward, to just have let it as be? The Churchmen are responsible for creating a needless confusion, and probably scandal as well.

[Good Friday]

Now: would it have been so very hard for the great Roman Catholic Churchmen to instead of letting a committee (the ICEL) mistranslate what Our Holy Mother has said to be the words of Christ, and then scoop up the mess afterward, to just have let it as be? The Churchmen are responsible for creating a needless confusion, and probably scandal as well.

Donna, the Churchmen you accuse of scandal are the Pope, several Cardinals, and I suspect several Bishops. Are you sure that they have caused scandal and needless confusion? Because that's something you might want to be sure about before you level that accusation on a public forum, before everyone in the world who wants to see and, of course, before Almighty God.

The passage you quoted from the Trent Catechism said nothing about those words being necessary to confect the Sacrament. It simply explained why the translation is rendered "for many," and I accept that. I even think that "for many" would perhaps be better. But I'm not going to act like I know better than the Pope and the Cardinals. Their education alone sets them in a higher caliber than me; add in the fact that they are always guided by the Holy Spirit, though not always infallibly, and you have people who know better what they're talking about than you or I do.

And that's my final answer.

[PedroX]

I fail to see, still how Mark and Donna's questions are schismatic. I do see how rudely people answer them in a rather blind adherence to a tradition that is barely 40 years old. Please let us stop calling people schismatic (thereby questioning their state of grace) unless they have been declared so by the church. I do not have that right, and neither does anyone else on this list. And calling devoted Catholics Protestants does nothing but put Protestant like divisions between us. This is beneath you Nathan, and you know it.

The truth is that currently both Masses are considered valid by the magisterium. To deride Church wisdom and practice for almost 2000 years by saying the following is unwise and rash.

So we're all bad Catholics because we don't "defend" the Tridentine Mass? Can you explain to me how an inaudible Mass spoken in a dead language, where the faithful are more prone to praying the Rosary than participating in the Mass, is a catechism? What is it teaching us, exactly? "Let the priest do the work"? "You're totally irrelevant to this"? "You don't need to know what's going on"? "Just pray to Mary, we'll take care of praying to God for you"? I really would like to know how exactly the Tridentine Mass is supposed to be such a superior catechism to the Novus Ordo. Again, I can't understand the Tridentine Mass; I can understand the Novus Ordo. That, in and of itself, makes it a better catechism.

Again, if you feel that Donna and Mark are in error, correct them in Love. If you are afraid for their mortal souls, contact your Bishop. But leave the name calling and pettiness at home.

peace...

[Donna]

First, Nathan, please remember I was speaking of two words alone , and referring to one sacrament. That is all I referred to.

Second, it is my understanding that De Defictibus retains its effect.

Third, Pope John Paul himself admitted in Ecclesia Dei that there have been new doctrines ("points of doctrine, perhaps because they are new"); and it is evident to anyone without a scrap of theology that the New and Old Mass are not in continuity. Litmus test: take a child to each one and then ask him.

Fourth, on infallibility. Perhaps you don't realize that when anyone disregards, or ignores it's Catholic past, it only kicks out the legs from under them in the future.

Fifth: Vatican II (for the 80th million time) was not infallible, Pope Paul VI said so; those doctrines reiterated already binding are (of course) still bound. The theological note of the Council given by Cardinal Felici was that novelties this does not include.

[Good Friday]

Again, if you feel that Donna and Mark are in error, correct them in Love. If you are afraid for their mortal souls, contact your Bishop. But leave the name calling and pettiness at home.

If I had their names, believe me, I would contact their Bishop. I have corrected them in as much love as I can give to people who would slander and betray the leaders of the Church over a discipline, if that love is lacking then I'm sorry. It is the best I can do.

Both Masses are valid, but only one of them is the Mass of the Roman Rite: the Novus Ordo Mass. The Tridentine Mass exists only because of the schism feared if it were done away with. I have no trouble admitting that the Tridentine Mass is valid. Did I say anywhere in my post that it wasn't? What I said was that I didn't think it was a better catechism than the Novus Ordo Mass because of its unintelligible language, its inaudible prayers, and its general lack of participation from the laity. I asked what kind of message that sends. So far, I have received no answer other than the (false) accusation that I denied its validity. It may be valid, but that doesn't make it good, and I don't believe that the Tridentine Mass has sown good fruit. I believe that the fruit of the Tridentine Mass is the worldwide culture of death.

If Donna and Mark were spouting Call To Action dogma as opposed to SSPX dogma, I would be being commended for my response to them. Because they are more conservative, however, I'm the bad guy.

[PedroX]

In a charitable effort to understand, did you say that the fruit of the Saints, doctors of the Church, and Popes, ie The Tridentine Mass is responsible for the Culture of Death? Please clarify, because I certainly would not want to misunderstand you in this.

Also, if you spoke to Donna and Mark in this tone about Call to Action, or even Voice of the Faithful, I would also speak to you the same. The internet is no excuse for rudeness.

peace...

[Good Friday]

First, Nathan, please remember I was speaking of two words alone , and referring to one sacrament. That is all I referred to.

True. Sorry for mentioning the other two Sacraments, they had nothing to do with the conversation. But are you saying that those who attend the Novus Ordo Mass (AKA the vast majority of Catholics) are not receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus?

Third, Pope John Paul himself admitted in Ecclesia Dei that there have been new doctrines ("points of doctrine, perhaps because they are new"); and it is evident to anyone without a scrap of theology that the New and Old Mass are not in continuity. Litmus test: take a child to each one and then ask him.

On the issue of new doctrine, I could swear we've had this conversation before. To state that there is new doctrine and mean it in that sense is a blatant attack against the Tradition of the Church. There cannot be new doctrine. Doctrine develops, but new doctrine does not come up. If you're going to quote the Pope, please quote him in full... the above is half a sentence. I'd like to see the whole sentence, along with two sentences before it and two sentences after it, so I can see the context of what the Pope is saying.

Your litmus test is inaccurate. Of course a child is going to see a vast difference between the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses. First of all, a child is too intellectually inferior to note the similarities in the Mass. What the child will notice is that Latin is being spoken, that the people are barely speaking at all, that he can rarely hear the priest, etc. To him, certainly, it will seem that there is no continuity between the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Masses. But there is continuity, he just doesn't know it because he is too young to comprehend them.

Fourth, on infallibility. Perhaps you don't realize that when anyone disregards, or ignores it's Catholic past, it only kicks out the legs from under them in the future.

Do you deny, then, that the ordinary magisterium teaches that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid?

Fifth: Vatican II (for the 80th million time) was not infallible, Pope Paul VI said so; those doctrines reiterated already binding are (of course) still bound. The theological note of the Council given by Cardinal Felici was that novelties this does not include.

I disagree with you on this. Anything new ("new" as in development of doctrine) taught at an ecumenical council is infallible. You can say 80 million more times that it was not infallible, and I will reply 80 million more times that it is. Nevertheless, the infallibility of the Council doesn't really pertain to whether or not the ordinary magisterium teaches that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. Three Popes and most of the world's Bishops have taught that the Novus Ordo is valid, therefore it is a part of the ordinary magisterium.