Author Topic: Valid but illicit  (Read 591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline s2srea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5085
  • Reputation: +3867/-41
  • Gender: Male
Valid but illicit
« on: November 09, 2020, 07:21:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can't find the old article I remember the SSPX had published regarding the new mass as valid but illicit. I think it was an Angelus article, but I'm unsure. Could someone provide the link? 

    Thank you!

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10176
    • Reputation: +3186/-186
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Valid but illicit
    « Reply #1 on: November 10, 2020, 08:03:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6799
    • Reputation: +3770/-1114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid but illicit
    « Reply #2 on: November 10, 2020, 08:16:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No one can say that EVERY new mass is valid, nor that EVERY one is invalid.  But the evidence leads one to say that most are invalid.  It just depends on the "priest" (if he is one), it depends on the canon prayer used, and it depends on the "priest's" person intention and his proper seminary training to have an orthodox understanding of the mass. 
    .
    Just look at the english speaking world:  +Benedict changed the consecration phrase back to "for many" from the invalid "for all".  He said that "for all" was invalid.  How long was that used in America and the english speaking world?  40 years!  From 1970 to around 2005 or so!  Every single new mass said with "for all" was 100% invalid.  And there are so many other reasons for its invalidity, apart from this clear one.
    .
    Cardinal +Ottaviani, one of the top theologians in rome in the 60s, said that, based on how the new canon prayers were written, the new mass' consecration "could be positively doubted" as valid.  Nothing has changed, theologically, to make the new mass less doubtful.  In fact, with the added issue of doubtful priests, the new mass is MORE doubtful than 30-40 yrs ago, when at least the priests saying it were true priests.
    .
    So, the point being, the sspx's opinion on the matter is unnecessary and irrelevant.  Cardinals +Ottaviani, +Bacci and team had more theological training than the entire history of sspx priests (500+) put together.  There is no reason for the sspx to "re-invent the wheel" and examine an issue that has already been decided.  The new mass has many "positive doubts" and the doubt has only gotten worse with time.

    Offline Thed0ctor

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 55
    • Reputation: +8/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid but illicit
    « Reply #3 on: November 10, 2020, 08:33:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ...
    Just look at the english speaking world:  +Benedict changed the consecration phrase back to "for many" from the invalid "for all".  He said that "for all" was invalid.  How long was that used in America and the english speaking world?  40 years!  From 1970 to around 2005 or so!  Every single new mass said with "for all" was 100% invalid.  And there are so many other reasons for its invalidity, apart from this clear one.
    ...

    Do you have the source for him saying masses said with "for all" were invalid? I'd like to save the source.

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5085
    • Reputation: +3867/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid but illicit
    « Reply #4 on: November 10, 2020, 08:39:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit
    Thank you RC. Are you able to tell me if this is the new version of SPX position or the old one? 


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6799
    • Reputation: +3770/-1114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Valid but illicit
    « Reply #5 on: November 10, 2020, 09:05:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Do you have the source for him saying masses said with "for all" were invalid? I'd like to save the source.
    Thomas Aquinas (Saint, Doctor of the Church, the leading theologian on the Eucharist and probably the greatest mind the Church has ever had), says in his monumental, erudite, theological treatise, Summa Theologica: “We must see whether. a. change of words destroys the essential sense of the words , because then the Sacrament is clearly invalid.” (Summa Theologica, III ,Q.60,Art.8) (Emphasis added)
    .
    Pope Benedict XIV, commenting on the explicit refutation by St. Thomas of the argument that the words “for all men” ought to be used instead of “for many”, says:
    .
    “Therefore We say that the blood of Christ was shed for a ll; ho wev er, a s reg a rds sufficiency, and for the elect only, as regards efficacy, as Doctor Thomas explains correctly: ‘The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles’ .... And therefore he says expressly, for you the Jews and for many, namely the Gentiles.” (Book II, Ch. XV, para. 11: De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio)
    .
    .
    Comment: Of course +Benedict, being a Modernist, doesn't speak super clearly, but if "many" is essentially different in meaning than "all", then per St Thomas, the mass is invalid.  Any normal person would agree.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16