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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?  (Read 2556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2449
  • Reputation: +964/-1098
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2019, 01:40:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 15, 2019, 01:29:29 PM
    That's the underlying problem at the heart of the new mass - it's validity is DIRECTLY DEPENDENT upon the INTERNAL intention of the "priest".  +Ottaviani explained this.  So how would +Benedict, or anyone, know the intention of every (or any) "priest"?  You can't.  You have to trust his seminary training...and such training was already starting to be compromised in the decade even before V2.
    Because, presumably, he had the right intention...or, since he's a modernist who has no qualms about lying, he won't admit the new mass' inherent problems.
    Benedict would know if "for all" made it invalid DESPITE the intention of the priest. If a priest with the right intention made "for all" valid, then "for all" wouldn't be invalidating at all. 
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10309
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #46 on: October 15, 2019, 01:55:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Benedict would know if "for all" made it invalid DESPITE the intention of the priest.
    Well, he may not know personally, but the Vatican theologians could study the matter.  The point is, even if he knew, he's never made a statement on the issue (nor did Paul VI).  All Benedict said was that "for many" was the correct translation.  This doesn't mean that if a "priest" uses "for many" that the new mass is valid.  It just means that this one, particular invalidating aspect is no longer a problem.  The remaining potentially-invalidating aspects still remain.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
    « previous next »