A Discussion Regarding Moral Doubt

[Amator Veritatis]

As was recommended by a distinguished individual from a previous discussion, I have begun a thread for the discussion of the topic which had deviated from the purpose of the thread regarding the moral liceity of assisting at a Mass at a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X, namely the moral implications of doubting the validity of a given Sacrament. The discussion, if there is to be one, should, as much as possible, pertain strictly to the topic at hand as already stated, but it must, necessarily, also entail discussion and argument regarding the specifics of the Sacrament in question, namely the Consecration of the Mass. With that being said, I shall commence the discussion with my points from the previous thread in response to Dave, who had asserted that a person who doubts the validity of the form of the Consecration of the Chalice in vernacular Masses would commit "a threefold mortal sin of blasphemy, heresy, and schism". My points were as follows.


I am unaware of any proclamation or applied principle that would hold a Catholic guilty of blasphemy, heresy or schism for having doubts regarding the validity of a given Sacrament. If a person were to hold that the Consecration of the Chalice in the vernacular languages, for example, were questionably valid, in what manner would he commit a blasphemy against God? He has uttered nothing of the sort. He has simply expressed his reservations regarding a form which deviates from the promulgated form of the Church and from the definition of the Council of Florence, the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the principles established in [i]De Defectibus formae [/i]from [i]De Defectibus in celebratione Missarum occurrentibus[/i]. N.B., [i]Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma Consecrationis Corporis, et Sanguinis, et in ipsa veborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum[/i], i.e., If anyone, however, were to lessen or were to alter the form of Consecration of the Body and of the Blood, and by the alteration of the words, the words were not to signify the same meaning, he would not confect the Sacrament.


In addition, to committing no sin of blasphemy, such a person has not committed an act of heresy either. There is not even an Article of Faith in question which he might reject. Finally, he would not commit a mortal sin of schism, for he has in no way separated himself from the Church. He has merely expressed moral reservations in the participation of a doubtful Sacrament. To state that the very act of assuming doubt in such a matter would constitute schism is unsubstantiated. If you would like, perhaps you could expound this point more fully. I would be likely to disagree, and perhaps this would be a point which might be discussed in the thread you have suggested. Regardless of any circumstances, however, such a person would commit neither the sin of blasphemy nor the sin of heresy. In any event, as you have stated, this discussion might be better engaged on a different thread. Perhaps I shall start a thread for this purpose, if it be permissible according to the norms of these forums.


N.B., the above translation is my own and is a direct translation from the Latin. I have seen the following given as a non-direct translation of the meaning: 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. Cf., [i]On the Mass [/i]from [i]The Angelus[/i], September 1978, Volume I, Number 9.

[Dave]

1. If a Catholic willfully doubts or denies the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, even if only in the vernacular, it's blasphemous because it's calling evil that which is intrinsically good and holy -- much like the Pharisees accused Jesus, who was God, of curing by the power of Satan.

2. and 3. I deal with the questions of heresy and schism in this post in another thread (it was addressing either Brendan or Sam; can't remember which one). Rather than rehash everything, I'm providing the link. Also, since I don't use the words "heresy" and "schism" in that post, let me add that the quote from Trent refers to heresy, and the quote from Vatican I refers to schism.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49363&st=50&p=924398entry924398"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...98entry924398[/url]

I also dealt with the issue of "for many" vs. "for all" in a previous thread: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=48903&st=25&p=912975entry912975"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...75entry912975[/url]

[Amator Veritatis]

For the sake of clarity, I should add the following references to my original comments.

The promulgated form of the Church to which I alluded refers primarily to the traditional form, i.e., [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i], but also to the modern form, i.e., [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]. The definition of the Council of Florence refers to the decree from the Council of Florence which follows.

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].


The teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to the section pertaining to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist which gives the form of the Holy Eucharist, namely the Explanation of the Form Used in the Consecration of the Wine. This teaching is found below.

The additional words [i]for you and for many[/i], are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke [35], 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. When therefore (our Lord) said: [i]For you[/i], He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, [i]And for many[/i], He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words [i]for all [/i]not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle [36] when he says: [i]Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many[/i]; and also of the words of our Lord in John: [i]I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine[/i]. [37]

N.B., [35] St. Matt. xxvi.28 ; [36] Heb. ix.28 [37] St. John xvii.9


The principles established in [i]De Defectibus formae[/i] from [i]De Defectibus in celebratione Missarum occurrentibus [/i]have been cited, but it would be profitable, perhaps, to cite the preceding words of the same section, the relevant of which are cited below.

[i]Verba autem Consecrationis, quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti, sunt haec: [color=red]Hoc est enim Corpus meum[/color], Et, [color=red]Hic est enim Calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium Fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/color][/i]. I.e., The words of the Consecration, however, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: [i]For this is my body[/i], and, [i]For 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[/i].


With these things being said, it is clear that the Church has spoken and has included the words [i]pro vobis et pro multis[/i], i.e., for you and for many, as a part of the words of the Consecration. These facts are attested by the documents already cited and by the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI., [i]Missale Romanum[/i], the relevant points of which are found below.

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. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem[/i]. The words Mysterium fidei 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.


As is sufficiently clear, Pope Paul VI. included the words [i]pro vobis et pro multis[/i] as a part of the Consecration of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. With my references cited, the discussion can commence, or continue, appropriately.

[Amator Veritatis]

I would contest the definition of the word blasphemous. To call something evil which is itself good and holy is, at least, a grave error but not necessarily blasphemy. Blasphemy consists, in its strict application, as a derogation of the honour belonging to God. For this reason, blasphemy is defined by Suarez as "any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God." This is the blasphemy which is a mortal sin. Blasphemy in its etymological application, i.e., derogation of the honour due to a creature, is not a mortal sin. This etymological usage, in fact, is not recognised theologically. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia provides the following regarding the kinds of blasphemy.

Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.

1. It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God".

2. It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God".

3. It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean".


For an individual to doubt that a Sacrament is valid would not constitute blasphemy in any manner, for the act of doubting is by no means a derogation of honour at all but, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "a state in which the mind is suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them." Besides, as was outlined in the above kinds of blasphemy, all blasphemy is a declaration of some sort, but doubt is precisely the absence of a declaration of any kind. A person unable to assent to the validity of a given Sacrament does not commit an act of blasphemy in any respect, for he does not make such a declaration.


As I stated previously, I wish the discussion to be focused primarily on what are the moral implications of doubting a given Sacrament. Rather than debating, primarily, whether the Sacrament is itself doubtful, I had sought to discuss the ramifications for those who already doubt in this matter. With that being said, I would also ask that you kindly revise your original comments from those threads and present them in a fashion suited to this topic, as I have done already, taking some of the work in my previous post from a thread of some time ago in which I presented a comparison between the formulae for Consecration in the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].

Edited April 3, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[son_of_angels]

Observe the words used explicitly in the Byzantine Liturgy

"This is my Blood of the Testament"

This is quite different from the formula "calix sanguinis mei." Different words, same consecration. Paul VI observed rightly regarding the liturgy that the only thing technically necessary for the consecration is the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" seperate from the others. Clearly the "pro multis" matter is not really debateable.

As to whether or not it is ok to question the validity of the Mass based on something like this, I would say no.. because to do so is to deny the implicit authority of the Holy Pontiff, and worse, of the Universal Church as exercised in her Bishops over their particular dioceses. Ergo, you are in disobedience to the church, and in denial of her authority. The Law of Christ is not one of strict definitions of sin, and the Spirit of God makes some things sins which do not fit legal definitions. I would say denying the validity of the Mass authorized by the Magisterium, as is legally established in translation, is heresy. Denying the wholesomeness, perhaps, of said translation, is a whole other matter.

[Era Might]

I don't have time to read through all the posts right now, but regarding the surety of the Sacred Liturgy, it is guaranteed in every age by virtue of the Church's indefectibility, and the Roman Pontiff's personal authority. To quote Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, of some infamy:

[quote]The beauty of the church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors...The purity and unity of the faith is in this manner also upheld by the supreme magisterium of the pope through the liturgical laws.[/quote]

Edited April 4, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Also, Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter "Mediator Dei":

[quote]It follows from this that 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. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.[/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

it is also pertinant to this conversation to point out that the Anaphora of Addai Mari is considered by the Church to be sufficient for valid consecration, despite the fact that it lacks the words of institution in any recognizable form.

As Amator has already cited, "If anyone, however, were to lessen or were to alter the form of Consecration of the Body and of the Blood, and by the alteration of the words, the words were not to signify the same meaning, he would not confect the Sacrament."

Many so-called "traditionalists" would argue that because [i]pro multis[/i] is not synonymous with [i]pro omnibus[/i] the consecration is invalid on account of the fact that "the words [do not] signify the same meaning." However, it seems to me to be a better interpretation (and more consistent with both the understanding of the Magisterium and the consecration in Byzantine liturgies, etc.) that what the quote is saying is that if one were to change the words of the consecration intending for a change in meaning, then this would not confect the sacrament. Thus, it is possible to understand the fact that the traditional latin words of consecration, their official vernacular translation according to the Church, the Byzantine and other different words of consecration, [i]and[/i] the Anaphora of Addai and Mari [i]all[/i] validly confect the sacrament, despite both minor (in the case of the first three) and major (in the case of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari) differences in wording.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

Edited April 4, 2006 by JeffCR07

[Paphnutius]

Has anyone pointed out the difference between doubting the celebration of a Novs Ordo Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass itself?

[Desert Walker]

No I don't believe anyone has. But it is a crucial point to be made here.

The Novus Ordo, when conducted according to its own rubrics, is a valid re-presentation of the Holy Sacrifice. That's a given.

But if the celebrant deviates from the rubrics to a degree which causes invalidation, then, obviously, informed laity are REQUIRED to admit that the Mass, as conducted, was not a Mass; but WAS a waste of time. And if they were attempting to fulfill their Sunday Obligation they must seek a valid Mass if such a thing can assuredly be found in the area.

Perhaps someone could provide the official criteria governing the judgement of "valid or invalid?"

It is neither blasphemy, heresy nor an act of schism to judge a Novus Ordo Mass invalid if, indeed, the Mass WAS invalid.

[quote]From Amator Veritatis:

To state that the very act of assuming doubt in such a matter would constitute schism is unsubstantiated.[/quote]

Not only is it unsubstantiated, but I would make the observation that a notion like that comes from a spirit of unjust reactionary triumphalism against the traditional Catholic society movement in general.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 4 2006, 06:28 AM']No I don't believe anyone has.  But it is a crucial point to be made here.[/quote]Indeed. My point is that while the faithul have a right to doubt an individual Mass's validity, the Novus Ordo Mass in itself is valid and that should not be questionable. I would liken it to the Principle of Double Effect. The Principle itself is a valid way of approaching a moral problem, but a specific application of it may not be valid. The gist of this is that Rome has approved and indeed promulgated the NO Mass stating that it is perfectly valid and the laity are to respond in obedience to this. An individual presentation of the Sacrifice, however, is "free game" so to speak.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Not only is it unsubstantiated, but I would make the observation that a notion like that comes from a spirit of unjust reactionary triumphalism against the traditional Catholic society movement in general.[/quote]

I agree. The path to reconciling the "radical traditionalists" to the Church is not to mash their faces in the mud and declare them all damned. Rather, we must show that we truly do sympathize with them and from there we can point out where they are making illicit logical jumps. No one has ever been persuaded by being treated like scum.

[Amator Veritatis]

It would be much appreciated if, when discussing the proper form of the Sacrament, we could strictly adhere to the actual pronouncements of the Church in order to draw conclusions from the explicit teachings rather than assessing what is done in practice in the East, drawing conclusions, and then applying those principles to the question at hand. The fact that the Byzantine Rite may use a different form is not relevant to the fact that the Church has in no uncertain terms defined that the words of the Consecration of the Chalice are those previously cited, according to which the Catechism of the Council of Trent intimates that "[c]oncerning this form no one can doubt". The words of the Consecration of the Wine are [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i]. While it can be presumed that the Consecration used in the Byzantine Rite is valid, we ought not assess this situation to determine the validity of the vernacular translations of the Consecration of the Chalice in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], if for no other reason than that the Byzantine Rite does not include certain operative phrases that the vernacular translations of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]do include, most notably the [i]pro omnibus [/i]rather than [i]pro multis[/i].


The most relevant point that must be recognised is that the same meaning must be signified for the Sacrament to be valid, and contrary to the proposition of Jeff, this signification concerns the words themselves and not the intention of the words. Hence, the following statement from [i]De Defectibus formae[/i]: [i]Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma Consecrationis Corporis, et Sanguinis, [b]et in ipsa veborum immutatione verba idem non significarent[/b], non conficeret Sacramentum[/i], i.e., If anyone, however, were to lessen or were to alter the form of Consecration of the Body and of the Blood, [i]and by the alteration of the words, the words were not to signify the same meaning[/i], he would not confect the Sacrament (emphasis added in both). If this be the case, either addition or subtraction of words might serve as a means of invalidating the Sacrament. Even if the Byzantine Rite in its form for the Consecration of the Chalice does sufficiently signify the same meaning as the Roman Rite without using the entire form or with fewer words, this fact does not indicate that the vernacular translations of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]are necessarily valid because they include the same meaning in one part, for the very fact that there is an alteration at a later point indicates that it be at least possible for meaning to be changed by the alteration of words. This problem is precisely the reason that the discussion ought focus on the actual teachings of the Church on the matter rather than deductive reasoning from the Eastern Rites.


In order to illustrate this logic, perhaps an hypothetical scenario would be fitting. If, for example, the Consecration of the Chalice at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]were to read in the following manner, there would be essentially no doubt regarding its invalidity. [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis [b]non [/b]effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i], i.e., For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed [i]not[/i] for you and for many, to the remission of sins. In this case, regardless of the fact that the form for Consecration is exactly the same as the traditional form except one word which occurs later in the Consecration, it would still be certainly invalid, for it does not signify the same meaning. In like manner, if the words[i] pro omnibus [/i]do not signify the same meaning as [i]pro multis[/i], then the Consecration, at best, would be of questionable validity. If the words [i]pro omnibus[/i] deviate so gravely from the meaning of the words of Consecration as to signify a different meaning, they certainly invalidate the Sacrament.


N.B., the form of the Consecration of the Chalice in the Byzantine Rite is as follows: "This is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins."

If anything, the only deductive conclusion that could reasonably be made would be to conclude that the phrase, [i]mysterium fidei[/i], is not absolutely necessary for validity. This matter, however, is not at issue, for the discussion is solely regarding the improper rendering of the [i]pro multis[/i], which is properly rendered in the Byzantine Rite and the Rites of the East. The so-called Anaphora of Addai and Mari contains not the words of Consecration, and as a result, can be given no credence as a valid rite of the Mass, any contrary declarations notwithstanding. To claim that such a rite could be valid is completely contrary to the tradition of the Church and the explicit teachings of the Church. This rite is not approved for Catholic use and, as such, enjoys not the status of promulgation in any respect whatsoever. Besides, such a declaration is not binding on Catholics insofar as it presents no belief which the Catholic faithful are to accept. It is not even relevant to the practical life of any Catholic except, perhaps, one who might wish to assist at Mass under such a rite if no Catholic Mass were available. Even then, however, the Catholic is not required to assist at such a rite, even if it be valid.

In analysing these facts objectively, one finds that the only rites of the Mass for Catholic use in which the Consecration of the Chalice does not include the words [i]pro multis[/i] or in which these words have been altered are the vernacular translations of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. All Eastern Rites include these words [i]pro multis[/i], but many do not include the [i]mysterium fidei[/i]. Anyone who would assert that what is signified by the phrase [i]this is the chalice of my blood[/i] is any different than what is signified by [i]this is my blood[/i] has not substantiated such a claim. In fact, the Roman Catechism states the following on the matter:

"The words: This is the chalice of my blood, are to be understood to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice." Cf., Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Holy Eucharist, The Form of the Eucharist, Explanation of the Form Used in the Consecration of the Wine

Now, while the explanation goes on to make clear that mention of the chalice is right and appropriate, it states first that the words "this is the chalice of my blood" mean "this is my blood, which is contained in this chalice", and this much is obvious simply according to common reason. What is signified by these two statements, namely "this is the chalice of my blood" and simply "this is my blood", is the precisely the same meaning. With reason, then, are those Eastern Rites to be considered to signify the same meaning of the words of Consecration which use the form "this is my blood" in place of "this is the chalice of my blood". This phrase, however, is itself irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which concerns itself with the use of [i]pro omnibus[/i] in the place of [i]pro multis[/i].


With all that being said, the argument would logically depend upon the analysis of what is signified by the words [i]pro omnibus [/i]and whether this alteration constitutes the same meaning as that which is signified by [i]pro multis[/i]. As cited earlier, the text of the Roman Catechism is perhaps most relevant.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle [36] when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine. [37] Cf., Explanation of the Form Used in the Consecration of the Wine

N.B., [36] Heb. ix.28 ; [37] St. John xvii.9

The teaching of the Church is that the words of the Consecration of the Chalice signify the fruits of the Passion alone and not the intrinsic value of Our Lord's Passion of which the Apostle speaks in another place, Cf., II St. Paul to Corinthians v.15. Now, if the fruits of the Passion alone are spoken of in the Consecration of the Wine and if these fruits be signified by the words themselves, which is clear from the teaching of the Roman Catechism, then the words [i]pro omnibus[/i] would seem to signify a separate meaning, for there can be no doubt that not all men are saved. In fact, Suarez remarks that "[t]he most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians, there are more damned souls than predestined souls." Cf., cited in a Sermon of St. Leonard of Port Maurice on [i]The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved[/i]. The fact that there are souls in Hell is so clearly held by every legitimate theologian that discussion on the matter is utterly unnecessary, unless someone does not already hold this position, in which case perhaps a separate thread would be in order for discussion, though conclusions could still be made in the matter at hand with the presumption that such a fact is true even if it need be demonstrated in a separate discussion. In any event, while I do not positively state that the form of the Consecration of the Chalice in the vernacular translations of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]is certainly invalid--if not for other reasons, at least for the sake of discussion--I have presented the arguments that this form is, at very best, doubtfully valid, and if doubtful, the Sacrament may not be approached morally.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:04 PM']While it can be presumed that the Consecration used in the Byzantine Rite is valid, we ought not assess this situation to determine the validity of the vernacular translations of the Consecration of the Chalice in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], if for no other reason than that the Byzantine Rite does not include certain operative phrases that the vernacular translations of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]do include, most notably the [i]pro omnibus [/i]rather than [i]pro multis[/i].
[right][snapback]935869[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Holy See accepts the vernacular translations. That means they are fine and valid.

This isn't rocket science.

Rome has spoken...you know the rest.

[Paphnutius]

Ahh...so this is about the Novus Ordo itself. Then I thank you Amator for your post for it was both a pleasure and educational. You have a writting style that is refreshing since many seem to disgregard grammar and the like when communicating online.

NB: I am terrible with spelling.

If I would be allowed to summarize the main thrust of your post in as few words as possible I believe that following would be adequate:[quote]With all that being said, the argument would logically depend upon the analysis of what is signified by the words pro omnibus and whether this alteration constitutes the same meaning as that which is signified by pro multis. As cited earlier, the text of the Roman Catechism is perhaps most relevant. [/quote]and:[quote]The teaching of the Church is that the words of the Consecration of the Chalice signify the fruits of the Passion alone and not the intrinsic value of Our Lord's Passion of which the Apostle speaks in another place, Cf., II St. Paul to Corinthians v.15. Now, if the fruits of the Passion alone are spoken of in the Consecration of the Wine and if these fruits be signified by the words themselves, which is clear from the teaching of the Roman Catechism, then the words pro omnibus would seem to signify a separate meaning, for there can be no doubt that not all men are saved. [/quote]I do not mean to detract what you have written but to boil it down for others for much of what you said was in support of these two bodies.

In repsonse I would state the following. You have defended well that if we were to substitute [i]pro omnibus [/i]in for [i]pro multis [/i]with the same understanding that was given by the Roman Catechism that the meaning would indeed change, but this begs the question. This does not show that [i]pro multis [/i]is the only acceptable choice of words for consecration, but that if we are to use [i]pro multis[/i], we must understand it in the way you have shown. What you have proven is that when we use the words [i]pro multis [/i], we are referring only to the fruits of the Passion. I would ask for more steadfast proof that [i]pro omnibus [/i]is unacceptable. The Roman Catechism, in the previous pargraph, states how we are also able to unerdstand the use of the words [i]pro omnibus[/i]. It does not, however, state that one may not use them as proper form.

In short, the teaching of the Church is not that the words of consecration refer only to the fruits of the Passion, but rather that the words [i]pro multis[/i] do.

This is my reply at the time being. I will continue to look and learn.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Paphnutius