The FSSP and the SSPX

[Amator Veritatis]

Noteworthy, perhaps, is that the words of the Consecration are not merely [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti[/i]. The position of most twentieth century theologians was that the necessary words of Consecration were simply [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei[/i]. It seems a bit odd that you have included [i]novi et aeterni testamenti[/i] for some reason. In any event, the actual words of Consecration, as found in the traditional Missale Romanum are these: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i]. Besides, the formulae you have given are not the extent of the words of Consecration, even as they are found in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. The words of Consecration in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] are as follows: [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes : hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur[/i] and [i]Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes : hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum : hoc facite in meam commemorationem[/i]. For some reason in your statement comparing the two formulae for Consecration, you seem to have omitted the introductory phrases which have been deemed to be a part of the words of Consecration and to have omitted the later part of the words of Consecration for the host, namely, [i]quod pro vobis tradetur[/i]. You have also added [i]mysterium fidei[/i] as though it were a part of the Consecration. These words, however, are not a part of the words deemed to be a part of the Consecration. These facts are attested by the Apostolic Constitution [i]Missale Romanum[/i] of Paul VI.

Both for pastoral reasons, however, and for the facilitation of concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each Eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur[/i]; over the chalice: [i]Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i]. [i]Hoc facite in meam commemorationem[/i]. The words [i]Mysterium fidei[/i] have been removed from the context of Christ's own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful's acclamation. Cf., [i]Missale Romanum[/i], Paul VI.


Paul VI. states rather clearly that the words [i]mysterium fidei[/i] are no longer a part of the Consecration both by failing to mention them in his enumeration of the formulae for Consecration and by his statement that they have been removed from the words of Our Lord and are spoken rather as an introduction to the so-called acclamation of the faithful. After correction these errors, the formulae for the words of Consecration as they stand in the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] are as follows:

Traditional Mass:
For the host: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i].

For the chalice: [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i].

Novus Ordo Missae:
For the host: [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes : hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur[/i].

For the chalice: [i]Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes : hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorm : hoc facite in meam commemorationem[/i].

N.B., the words [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes[/i] for the host and [i]Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes[/i] for the chalice antecede the words of Consecration in the traditional Mass. Between the two Consecrations are the following words: [i]Simili modo postquam coenatum est : accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas : item tibi gratias agens benedixit deditque discipulis suis dicens : accipite et bibite ex eo omnes[/i]. Following the Consecration of the chalice are the words [i]Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis[/i]. These statements are not a part of the words of Consecration as outlined by the Council of Florence, [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i] and the Missale Romanum itself.

With those corrections made, the formulae for the words of Consecration in the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] may now be compared accurately. The fact that some theologians--the gravely vast minority throughout history--hold that the necessary words are restricted to [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei[/i] does not make such a position true. In fact, the various documents of the Church throughout history have not given rise to such theories. The pertinent documents regarding the words of Consecration have made no distinction, claiming which words are necessary and which are not, but it must be understood that all the words are not necessary for validity, as is noted in [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i]--often, simply, [i]De Defectibus[/i]--which can be found in the traditional Missale Romanum. Now, the Council of Florence states the following regarding the words of Consecration:

Because in the aforementioned decree of the Armenians the form of the words which the Holy Roman Church, strengthened by apostolic doctrine and authority, had always been wont to use in the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord is not explicit, we have decided to insert it in the present decree. In the consecration of the Body this form of words is used: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i]; and for the Blood: [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i].


As the decree illustrates, "the words which the Holy Roman Church...[has] always been wont to use" are precisely those found in the traditional Missale Romanum. A similar declaration can be found in [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i].

Defects may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this sacrament, are as follows: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i]. And: [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.[/i] If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant commits a mortal sin.


As was stated earlier, [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i] states that a change could be made without invalidating the Consecration. Now, as far as determining which words are necessary for validity, the Church has given no guidelines. As a result, there is no certainty as to which words are not necessary. Because this is the case, one is not able to assert that any given word is itself unnecessary but only that, in general, not all the words are necessary. Speculation in this area is, of course, possible, but it is by no means certain. The claim that the essential words of Consecration are identical in both the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] is simply fallacious. The formulae previously cited as those used for the Consecration of the host and the Consecration of the chalice in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] were erroneous. As to my opinion as to which words are necessary, I can make no definitive statement, for such is merely speculation without certainty. I can say, however, that, should the meaning expressed in the words of Consecration be changed at all, the formula for Consecration would be invalid. This much is beyond doubt.


As a concluding and clarifying remark, the [i]pro multis[/i], properly speaking, is not found in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] in the vernacular languages. In its place is found the [i]pro omnibus[/i], i.e., for all. In this manner, one would properly state that the English [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] contains neither the [i]mysterium fidei[/i] nor the [i]pro multis[/i] in its formula for Consecration of the chalice, which seems to have been the point of Donna. The [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], does, of course, contain the [i]pro multis[/i] in its Latin form.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Amator Veritatis]

Cam, would you like to respond?

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholic vs Catholic Debate

A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. [color=green]This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/color]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 17 2006, 09:57 AM']Cam, would you like to respond?
[right][snapback]913815[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Based upon forum guidelines, no.

I will defend the Missa Normativa (and the Tridentine Liturgy), but I will not debate it. You are engaging a debate. I am sorry, but my statements are not about debate, nor are they above reproach.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date=' Posted Today, 10:16 AM']Catholic vs Catholic Debate

A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. [color=green]This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/quote][/color]

No. I will not respond.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you wish to pursue this via pm , enjoy.