Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2  (Read 2467 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12468
  • Reputation: +7915/-2449
  • Gender: Male
Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2
« on: August 20, 2025, 09:28:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • The council of Florence defined, using its solemn authority, the words of consecration, to make a Mass valid.  Paul6 decided to change the words of consecration in his novus ordo.  Let's compare to 2 docuмents, to highlight the changes.  And to remind everyone, that there is YET ANOTHER reason (among many) to doubt the validity of the new mass.


    Quote
    "In the consecration of the body the Church uses this form of the words: 'For this is my body'; 

    but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: 'For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.'" (Council of Florence, Denzinger 715)

    "The mystery of faith" is a reference to the fact that it is a "mystery" i.e. a sacrament.  To remove this phrase is to doubt or deny the sacramental quality of the consecration.  


    Quote
    “Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

    HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and


    HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM 


    --De Defectibus (Concerning Defects when saying Mass) by Pope St. Pius V in 1570


    ------

    Now let's look at what Paul6 changed it to.


    Quote
    However, for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be identical in each formulary of the Canon. Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: 

    ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR


    Paul6's changes for the consecration of the wine are:


    Quote
    over the chalice: 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. 

    The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.

    Of course, Paul6 removed the phrase "Mysterium Fidei" and now it is NOT part of the consecration formula.

    According to Pope St Pius V's ruling, this change is a defect of the form and would be (at least) a probable doubt of validity.
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1197
    • Reputation: +507/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2
    « Reply #1 on: August 20, 2025, 10:25:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 20, 2025, 09:28:46 AM
    The council of Florence defined, using its solemn authority, the words of consecration, to make a Mass valid.  Paul6 decided to change the words of consecration in his novus ordo.  Let's compare to 2 docuмents, to highlight the changes.  And to remind everyone, that there is YET ANOTHER reason (among many) to doubt the validity of the new mass.


    "The mystery of faith" is a reference to the fact that it is a "mystery" i.e. a sacrament.  To remove this phrase is to doubt or deny the sacramental quality of the consecration. 



    ------

    Now let's look at what Paul6 changed it to.



    Paul6's changes for the consecration of the wine are:


    Of course, Paul6 removed the phrase "Mysterium Fidei" and now it is NOT part of the consecration formula.

    According to Pope St Pius V's ruling, this change is a defect of the form and would be (at least) a probable doubt of validity.

    Yes to all that you said, Pax. And to add some other important things.

    The sentence before your quote from the Council of Florence, we find the following statement:

    Quote
    But since in the above written decree of the Armenians the form of the words, which in the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord the holy Roman Church confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles had always been accustomed to use, was not set forth, we have thought that it ought to be inserted here.

    Florence is saying that the "form" that includes the words "mysterium fidei" is of Apostolic origin, not from a development of mere Church discipline or habit.

    And Pius V says the following right after the quote you provided from de defectibus:

    Quote
    If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be confecting the Sacrament [non conficeret Sacramentum]. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be confected [conficeret], but he would be committing a grave sin [gravissime peccaret].

    Note that he distinguishes between the ontological defect (non conficeret = not made) and the juridical defect (gravissime peccaret = grave sin). The former is from certain knowledge arising from the intellect based on Apostolic origin. The latter is from the exercise of will based in the juridical power of the Church.

    So, the words "mysterium fidei" came from Apostles. And to leave those words out of the "form" will result in an ontological failure to confect the Sacrament in the Consecration of the Blood.

    However, the Consecration of the Bread would still be confected by a true Priest. But as Canon Law (both 1917 and 1983) says, to confect one species without the other is a sacrilege.

    Quote
    Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)

    It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other,
    or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.

    This is the intentional sacrilege brought about by the New Mass. This is why the Novus Ordo is a type of Black Mass.

    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12468
    • Reputation: +7915/-2449
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2
    « Reply #2 on: August 20, 2025, 11:03:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Great additional info, Angelus.  I could not find the original docuмents quickly, so i used excerpts from this site.  The additional quotes you provide really make Paul6's changes THAT much worse.  

    There's no way he (and his theologians) didn't know what Florence said, or what St Pius V said.  They just disregarded both of them altogether.  The doubt is unmistakable.  One could easily argue that invalidity is highly probable.
    Logged

    Offline LeDeg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 780
    • Reputation: +536/-135
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2
    « Reply #3 on: August 20, 2025, 01:24:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 20, 2025, 11:03:14 AM
    Great additional info, Angelus.  I could not find the original docuмents quickly, so i used excerpts from this site.  The additional quotes you provide really make Paul6's changes THAT much worse. 

    There's no way he (and his theologians) didn't know what Florence said, or what St Pius V said.  They just disregarded both of them altogether.  The doubt is unmistakable.  One could easily argue that invalidity is highly probable.
    And since we know what Pius VI taught in Auctorem fidei, then there can only be one conclusion.

    Logged
    "You must train harder than the enemy who is trying to kill you. You will get all the rest you need in the grave."- Leon Degrelle

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12468
    • Reputation: +7915/-2449
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2
    « Reply #4 on: August 20, 2025, 01:43:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: LeDeg on August 20, 2025, 01:24:06 PM
    And since we know what Pius VI taught in Auctorem fidei, then there can only be one conclusion.
    https://onepeterfive.com/does-pius-vis-auctorem-fidei-support-paul-vis-novus-ordo/

    Great point, LeDeg.  Pope Pius 6 condemns Paul 6.  (just add another papal condemnation to Paul6's list).  And here's an article which gives more details.  I will post summary points.


    The heretical Pistoians argued:

    Quote
    there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the New Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstition and materialism.


    Pius VI goes on to condemn the Pistoians—saying that their opinion
    Quote
    includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

    From the article:

    He is condemning in advance the reform of Bugnini, the Consilium, and Montini, which agree closely with the platform of Pistoia.[2] It would therefore be entirely illogical and self-contradictory to attempt to apply Auctorem Fidei of the year 1794, when the liturgy Pius VI was defending was none other than the Tridentine rite, to the Novus Ordo of 1969, which Paul VI intended as a replacement for the imperfect and no longer profitable rite of Pius V. Pius VI is appealing to the objective truth that the Church cannot err in approving her traditional liturgy; therefore in approving a non-traditional liturgy that departs from the uninterrupted chain of ecclesial transmission, it is Paul VI, not (e.g.) Archbishop Lefebvre, who runs afoul of his predecessor’s condemnation.

    In Gregory XVI’s Quo Graviora, we see the same dynamic at work.[3] Written in 1833, not even forty years after Auctorem Fidei, the text makes it immediately clear that the pope is responding to the German cousins of the Pistoian heretics, whom he sees as moved by a “wicked passion for introducing novelties into the Church.” He describes their views:

    Quote
    They state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith and morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church.
    Sounds strangely familiar, doesn’t it? This is precisely the rhetoric used by the central and northern European faction at the Second Vatican Council, as we find it carefully docuмented in Roberto de Mattei’s work (completing the docuмentation done by Ralph Wiltgen in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber).[4]

    Continues Gregory: “They contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately” and “the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind.” These sentiments, voiced relentlessly around the time of the last ecuмenical Council, shaped the implementation of it, especially in the area of the sacred liturgy. “They attack this Holy See as if it were too persistent in outdated customs and did not look deeply inside the character of our time”—this was said in 1833, but it might as well have been 1963!

    Quote
    They accuse this See of becoming blind amid the light of new knowledge, and of hardly distinguishing those things which deal with the substance of religion from those which regard only the external form. They say that it feeds superstition, fosters abuses, and finally behaves as if it never looks after the interests of the Catholic Church in changing times…. Nor do We want to discuss their errors concerning the new Rituale written in the vernacular, which they want to have adapted more to the character of our times.

    It’s both comical and tragic to see the parallels between the rebelliousness Gregory is condemning and the progressivist attitudes that prevailed at Vatican II, encouraged and rewarded by a sympathetic Paul VI. Yes, he was not as progressivist as some others were, and on certain issues he was capable of reaffirming traditional doctrine; nevertheless, the same can be said of the Pistoians and the Germans, who leaned Catholic on some points and Jansenist/Protestant on others.
    Now we come to the important paragraph 10, in which I will highlight the lines that are lifted out of context and thrown in the faces of traditionalists:

    Quote
    These men [i.e., the self-styled reformers] want to utterly reform the holy institution of sacramental penance. They insolently slander the Church and falsely accuse it of error, and their shamelessness should be deplored even more. They claim that the Church, by ordering annual confession, allowing indulgences as an added condition of fulfilling confession, and permitting private Eucharist and daily works of piety, has weakened that salutary tradition[5] and subtracted from its power and efficacy. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth—all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ? Those proponents of new ideas who are eager to foster true piety in the people should consider that, with the frequency of the sacraments diminished or entirely eliminated, religion slowly languishes and finally perishes.
    As teachers remind their students again and again, context makes all the difference. Gregory defends the Church’s inability to go astray in the directing of the sacraments because the Church, as the pillar and foundation of truth, has always taught and acted consistently in regard to them. In other words, as with Pius VI, Gregory cannot conceive of a good Catholic who would “utterly reform” anything and thereby commit insolent slander against the Church by holding her to have erred in her long-standing discipline. Paul VI, on the contrary, held that the liturgy’s being in Latin was an obstacle to the salvation of souls: for him, this 1,600-year-old custom redounded to the “disgrace and detriment” of the sacraments.

    In short: Gregory XVI might as well be describing the liturgical and sacramental fallout of Vatican II, stemming from the same kind of false principles as the ones he diagnosed and condemned among certain Germans of his day. The same can be said of Pius VI with regard to the Italians of his day a few decades earlier. These popes are defending as the work of God and the rock-solid witness of the Church all the traditional liturgical rites that the would-be reformers of the Enlightenment era criticize as faulty and arrogantly propose to recast or renew. Either these popes are correct about the traditional rites of the Church, and the twentieth-century reformers are no better than their Pistoian and German forerunners; or the entire rationale of Auctorem Fidei and Quo Graviora falls apart. You can’t have it both ways.
    Logged

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3021
    • Reputation: +2/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2
    « Reply #5 on: August 20, 2025, 10:52:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If the form of the consecration was settled at Florence why did approved theologians after this time engage in a long/short form debate?
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1197
    • Reputation: +507/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Council of Florence vs Paul6, part 2
    « Reply #6 on: August 21, 2025, 07:49:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Caminus on August 20, 2025, 10:52:40 PM
    If the form of the consecration was settled at Florence why did approved theologians after this time engage in a long/short form debate?

    I don't believe it was settled at Florence. I believe it was settled by Pius V when he published Quo Primum which referenced the Roman Missal which included the instruction De defectibus which elaborated on the proper use of that Missal which included the precise "form" that must be used in order to "confect the Sacrament."

    Why did theologians continue to engage in debate after that? Who knows. Different people have different reasons.

    But the requirements to "Confect the Sacrament" in De defectibus, published by Pius V, are not ambiguous. And you can find them in any TLM Missal. You can make your own choice to follow Pius V or to follow whatever group of theologians you prefer.
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »