Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on May 02, 2014, 09:21:00 AM
-
http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm
APPENDIX 4
INVALID CONSECRATION OF THE WINE INVALIDATES
OR AT LEAST CASTS DOUBT UPON THE CONSECRATION OF THE BREAD
By Rev. Lawrence S. Brey
1) INTRODUCTION. Even if the Consecration of the Wine is invalid by reason of defect of form, and therefore the entire Mass is invalid, does the priest nevertheless truly consecrate the bread in such a Mass? Even if the wine does not become truly consecrated, would we not at least have validly consecrated Hosts, the true Eucharistic Body of Christ, provided that the Consecration of the Bread be performed using the proper matter and form? And therefore could not our people at least be certain they are receiving the true Body and Blood of Jesus at Communion time in such a Mass?
The answer to these questions is a qualified no, for one could not be certain that the hosts are truly consecrated; at least there is a real and practical doubt. In fact, some theologians hold with certainty that under such circuмstances the bread is not validly consecrated.
2) NO SACRIFICE WITHOUT BOTH CONSECRATIONS. In the first place, the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord was given to us only and exclusively in the context of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. "As often as the sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the Will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'do this in commemoration of Me' (Cf. I Cor. 11, 24-25) ... (and) the very notion of sacrifice ... demands the consecration of both species." (De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S.J., in "SUMMA THEOLOGIAE MORALIS," III Innsbruck, 1940).
For the Consecration re-enacts and commemorates the Sacrifice of the Cross, in that the separate consecration of both species produces the mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood. "The consecration of both species is required by Divine Law for the essence of the Sacrifice: this We know from Christ's very (words of) Institution, and from the precept and practice of the Church, so that it is necessary in order that a true representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross be had." (Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, Tanquerey - Bord, Paris, 1952).
3) IF NO SACRIFICE, THEN NO SACRAMENT. Nor is there any indication anywhere that Christ willed the sacrament of the Eucharist to be confected apart from the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. Indeed, the notion of the sacrament in the Eucharist, according to the Will of Christ, cannot be separated from the notion of the sacrifice." (Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit). Indeed, in practice, Church law absolutely forbids, without any exception, the consecration of only one species without the other. Canon 817 of the Code of Canon Law states: "It is forbidden, even in extreme cases of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other ... " The Roman Missal, in its section, "De Defectibus," prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice (Cf. De Defectibus, x, 3).
4) CONSECRATION OF ONLY ONE SPECIES RENDERS VALIDITY AT LEAST DOUBTFUL. As for the validity of the Consecration of the Bread in a case where the Wine is for some reason not consecrated, theologians agree that such a Consecration of the Bread would be valid only if the celebrant had the intention of performing the second Consecration (that of the Wine), but had become incapacitated or for some reason unable to perform it. "One species is validly consecrated without the other, if the celebrant has the intention of offering sacrifice [but then is interrupted] ... But it is never licit to consecrate one species if the celebrant foresees a defect in the other species, because from the Will of Christ the Consecration of the Eucharist must simultaneously be also the complete Sacrifice, which certainly would not be the case unless both species are consecrated." (Epitome Theologiae Moralis Universae, ed. Dr. Carolo Telch, Innsbruck, 1924).
Thus, if the celebrant did not have the intention of properly consecrating the wine, the Consecration of the Bread would be in doubt. Some theologians, indeed, hold that it is certain, in such a case that the bread would not be truly consecrated. For, a priest not having the intention of consecrating the wine (or of properly consecrating it) would ipso facto not have the intention of offering the true Sacrifice or of consecrating according to the Mind of Christ.
5) DE LA TAILLE'S OPINION. Maurice de la Taille, S.J. is one such modern theologian of note, who believed that such a single consecration of bread (alone) would be certainly invalid. In his treatise on the Mass, he observes: "[T]he conclusion of St. Thomas stands: that the determination of the propitiatory virtue enters into the form of the second consecration [by means of the words: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins], but not of the first [i.e., the consecration of the Bread]. Moreover, because in the Roman Canon no such determination of propitiatory intention is expressed over the Body, for this reason St. Thomas very rightly taught that our form of consecration in the Mass in respect of the Blood would be deficient, and so ineffective, if the rest of the words [i.e., which shall be shed or you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins] were not added." (De la Taille, "The Mystery Of Faith," Book II, p. 444, n. 1).
"But this which we have shown to be sufficient to indicate the propitiatory intention [i.e., the more determinate form: which shall be shed or you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins] is also absolutely necessary for the completion of the form: for, meantime, until this designation is given [expressing the purpose or end for which Christ shed His Blood], the formula does not yet express all that must be expressed, and so does not accomplish anything: for here in reality the effect and what is signified by the formula are indivisible." (De la Taille, op. cit., p. 443, emphasis added).
"What then would happen," asks de la Taille, "if a priest, while consecrating the Body by the Roman rite, had the intention of pronouncing over the chalice only the words: This is the chalice of my blood? According to our argument he would not so consecrate even the body validly. The reason is that no one consecrates the Body validly unless he has at least the intention of consecrating the Blood also ... because no one consecrates validly without having at least the implicit intention of offering sacrifice. But the priest who excludes the intention of applying this more determinate form, of which we have been speaking, in respect of the Blood, actually thereby excludes the intention of valid consecration, from what we have said above. Therefore he excludes the intention of offering the sacrifice. Hence he does not even consecrate the Body validly." (De la Taille, op. cit., pp. 444-5, n. 1, emphasis added).
6) THE CASE OF THE NEW ENGLISH CANON. Now, if the new English form of Consecration has been so mutilated (and this appears to be the case) as to change the meaning and intent of the form of consecration and to alter substantially the meaning of the propitiatory element of the form (by substituting "for all men so that ..."), thus invalidating the Consecration of the Wine, we have a situation tantamount to that described by de la Taille. The celebrant, even though he uses the complete (English) form of consecration, is thereby using a "form" with a mutilated propitiatory element, and therefore he neither truly intends to nor does he actually offer true Sacrifice. And thus his consecration of even the Bread is doubtful; and, according to some theologians (as we have seen), he certainly does not validly consecrate the Bread.
Adding more weight to this thesis is the following consideration: Such a "Mass" (involving only one consecration instead of the dual consecration) would be entirely foreign to the intent of Christ and His institution of the Sacrament and Sacrifice via the valid dual Consecration of Bread and Wine. Such a "Mass" would indeed be a sacrilegious monstrosity. It is difficult to conceive that Christ would permit the presence of His Eucharistic Body to be effected under such circuмstances.
7) CONCLUSION. In practice, then, those who are aware of the fact that there is at least a real doubt as to the valid consecration of hosts "consecrated" in Masses using the "new English Canon" (or any other "Canon" embodying similar mutilations of the Consecration form), could not in conscience participate in such a "Mass" or receive Communion with a host consecrated at such a Mass.
L.S.B.
May 5, 1968
Feast of St. Pius V
-
We have flogged this horse to death in the 'pro multa' debate on numerous boards over the last 20 years. It always comes down to what is germain to the confection of the sacrament using Trent and the church fathers. The answer has always been that the words "This is My blood" suffices to consecrate the sacrament and represents the common words of the form across all Catholic rites.
The validly ordained priest who says these words with valid matter is assumed to be doing what the church does and confects the sacrament.
Of course, there is still a debt to be paid by the authors of the New Mass who maliciously mistranslated the Latin to advance a political/modernist agenda. But it appears that they did not have the affect of invalidating the Consecration.
-
The changing of "for many" into "for all" does not necessitate a change in meaning (or change in signification) for two reasons:
First, because it can be understood to mean for all the Elect, or for all who are cleansed by the Precious Blood of Christ, and does mean such when supplied a Catholic understanding, as Vatican I demands.
Second, because "all" has been used in the Anaphoras of three Eastern Catholic Rites that have been accepted as valid by the Church.
-
Second, because "all" has been used in the Anaphoras of three Eastern Catholic Rites that have been accepted as valid by the Church.
Source?
It's a moot point, though, since the translations have reverted back to "for many".
In addition, the validity of the New Mass is of little practical consequence to Traditional Catholics who believe that it cannot be attended in good conscience.
-
The validity of a non-traditional formula can never be infallibly known. You can speculate all you want on it but unless God gives some special revelation showing a sign of His approval you will not know with certainty. That's why tradition is so important. It is the only way to be sure that our worship is pleasing to Him.
-
Second, because "all" has been used in the Anaphoras of three Eastern Catholic Rites that have been accepted as valid by the Church.
Source?
It's a moot point, though, since the translations have reverted back to "for many".
In addition, the validity of the New Mass is of little practical consequence to Traditional Catholics who believe that it cannot be attended in good conscience.
The reference was about the Old Maronite Canons used in Eastern rites. The Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon says: “This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin.” . There are also 2 anaphoras more used in the Syro-Antiochene Rite which also say "all" instead of many:
- The Aanaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist:
"This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”
- The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist:
“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0RanQa-mLTwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Not that really matters anyway. The word "all" as well as "many" is to be understood for the elect only. The consecration is not done for members outside the Body of Chirst, because that would mean the heresy of universal salvation.
-
Is this the same Fr. Lawrence Brey who last had a private chapel near St. Cloud, MN until his death in the mid-2000's?
-
The validity of a non-traditional formula can never be infallibly known. You can speculate all you want on it but unless God gives some special revelation showing a sign of His approval you will not know with certainty. That's why tradition is so important. It is the only way to be sure that our worship is pleasing to Him.
Actually the Roman Pontiff has the authority to introduce, approve and promulgate a new Rite of Mass, so long as the substance of the sacrament is not changed, given that no pope can do that since the very substance of the sacraments come from Christ Himself.
"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.”
Pope Paul VI didn't make any changes to the Tridentine Latin Rite. The Novus Ordo is a completely new rite of Mass promulgated by the Pope, and established and propagated across the Latin Church after Vatican II.
-
Pope Paul VI didn't make any changes to the Tridentine Latin Rite. The Novus Ordo is a completely new rite of Mass promulgated by the Pope, and established and propagated across the Latin Church after Vatican II.
If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.
Ref: Session Vll (March 3, 1547), Canons on the Sacraments in General, Canon 13.
See Denzinger 856
-
There are also 2 anaphoras more used in the Syro-Antiochene Rite which also say "all" instead of many:
- The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist:
"This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”
- The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist:
“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life.
... and in both instances the meaning of "all" is qualified, which serves to nullify Cantarella's argument.
-
There are also 2 anaphoras more used in the Syro-Antiochene Rite which also say "all" instead of many:
- The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist:
"This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”
- The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist:
“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life.
... and in both instances the meaning of "all" is qualified, which serves to nullify Cantarella's argument.
-
Council of Trent says:
"If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema".
---------------------------------------------------------------
As abhorrent as it is, the Novus Ordo Mass is an approved Rite (a "received and approved rite of the Catholic Church), so simply saying the new rite (which has papal approval) does not qualify as such does not apply under this anathema.
Also, the Roman Pontiff does not fall under the "any pastor" condition. Pope Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Rite itself. but simply promulgated a new order of Mass (or a new rite) and the condition stated by the canon condemns those who hold that the received Rite can "be changed... to other new ones." But the received rite was not changed, just a new rite was added.
We know the substance of the sacraments cannot be changed or even touched as Pope Leo XIII declared in his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896). However, the establishment and approval of new rites does belong to the Church, and this would include those sacramental forms belonging to particular rites, SO LONG AS THE SUBSTANCE IS NOT CHANGED.
-
Agree with Vinny and Cantarella. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange writing before the modern controversy arose says that the sacred words Hoc est enim Corpus Meum i.e. This is My Body and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei i.e. This is the Chalice of My Blood independently of those that follow are necessary and sufficient to effect transubstantiation. Father even says, "For the many, also signifies, for all sufficiently ... That is, for all sufficiently, for many efficaciously".Besides the many authorities including St. Thomas he cites as teaching this opinion, he also advances theological reasoning in proof of it.
But what is necessary for simple validity on the one hand and for the integrity of the sacrament on the other, as Abp. Lefebvre explains, are two vastly different things.
Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.
The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.
-
Fr. Garrigou Lagrange writing before the modern controversy arose says that the sacred words Hoc est enim Corpus Meum i.e. This is My Body and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei i.e. This is the Chalice of My Blood independently of those that follow are necessary and sufficient to effect transubstantiation.
Well, Nishant, with all due respect to Fr Garrigou Lagrange, if that in fact was his teaching, it seems to me that, in this matter, he was out of step with the Roman Catechism (as well as with Saint Thomas). In my view, the safer course is that taught by the Roman Catechism, considering that it rests upon the same authority as does the Missale Romanum of 1570.
-
There are also 2 anaphoras more used in the Syro-Antiochene Rite which also say "all" instead of many:
- The Anaphora of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist:
"This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”
- The Anaphora of St. Mark the Evangelist:
“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life.
... and in both instances the meaning of "all" is qualified, which serves to nullify Cantarella's argument.
Correct; all the true faithful and all that believe in Him.
-
Vatican I infallibly declared in Pastor Aeternus that whatever the Church puts forth is “to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church” . This is known as the supplied Catholic understanding of terms and clauses (Sensus Fidei).
Therefore, we are to understand the new sacramental form of the Novus Ordo rite, not according to our own judgement (which may be biased because of our reaction to the modernist heresy) but "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church".
So the words "for all" must be understood in an orthodox manner as meaning for the Elect only. This is "ALL" the members of the Body of Christ, not those oustide the Church, which implies the heresy of universal salvation. It is clear that the Sacrament is only given for those upon whom the Blood of Jesus is efficacious.
-
The church has approved of many consecration forms among Catholic eastern rites, and in doing so has in no way changed, the substance of the sacrament. Notice 5th and 6th.
1. The anaphora according to the order of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, the mother of all the churches.
"For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which for you and for many shall be poured forth for the remission of sins.”
2. The anaphora of St. Peter, head of the apostles.
"This is my body, which for you and for many is broken and is given for the expiation of crimes, the remission of sins, and life eternal".
3. The anaphora of the Twelve Apostles.
"For this is the new testament in my blood, which for you and for many is poured forth for the expiation of sins and life eternal".
4. The anaphora of St. James.
"This is my blood of the new testament, which for you and for many is shed and distributed for the remission of sins".
5. The anaphora of St. John the apostle and evangelist.
"This is the chalice of my blood of the new testament: take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to all that believe in him for ever and ever.
6. The anaphora of St. Mark the evangelist.
"This is my blood of the New Testament; take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of all the true faithful, and for eternal life".
7. The anaphora of St. Xystus, the pope of Rome.
"For this is the chalice of my blood of the new testament, which for you and many is given for the expiation of crimes, and hath given to us the remission of eternal life".
8. The anaphora of St. John Chrysostom.
"This is my blood which confirms the testament of my death: which for you is poured forth, and for many is given and divided, to the propitiation of transgression, the remission of sins, and life eternal".
9. The anaphora of St. Basil.
"This is that my blood which for you and for many is poured forth and sprinkled, for the expiation of transgressions, and remission of sins, and for life eternal".
10. The anaphora of St. Cyril.
"This is my blood which seals the testament of my death, and prepares you and many of the faithful to eternal life".
11. The anaphora of St. Dionysius.
"This is my blood of the new testament, which for you and for many is poured forth and given for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins, and life eternal".
The form for some of the other rites are as follows:
For the Byzantine (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom):
"This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".
For the Armenian:
"This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins".
For the Coptic:
"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".
For the Ethiopic:
“This is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be poured out and offered for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life of you and many".
For the Chaldean:
"this is my blood of the new covenant, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".
For the Malabar:
"For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins".
(Taken from: “The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the church of malabar," 1859; by father j. m. neale)
This shows that the Consecration validity is not bond to every word the priest says. As long as the substance of the Sacrament does not change.
The Novus Ordo rite of Mass in itself is not the enemy. The modernist heresy with its denial of the salutary dogma of EENS is.
-
Cantarella,
To the first of your last two posts:
When you finally come to understand that it was not the Catholic (=Universal) Church that imposed the Novus Ordo Missae, then a lot of this will become much clearer to you, and you won’t need to scrape around looking to excuse it.
To the second:
The Novus Ordo Missae was imposed as a substitute for the Mass of the Roman rite. There is just no point in citing ancient non-Roman rites to justify the invention of a committee steered by a modernist.
-
Dear Sunbeam, Father offers some proofs both from Tradition and from reason.
...there is a difficulty, namely, Whether St. Thomas wished to say that these words alone “This is the chalice of my blood,” do not suffice for validity? ...
Thirdly, it is proved by theological reason: Those words alone are essential which signify the real presence of the blood of Christ. But the aforesaid words independently from those following signify this real presence, no less than “this is my body,” in dependently from the following, that is handed over for you. Therefore the last words of the consecration of the wine are not for it’s essence, but for it’s integrity.
Lastly, St. Thomas himself, in our question, a. 1 c. et ad 4 says, “if the priest would mention only the aforesaid words (this is my body and this is my blood), with the intention of confecting the sacrament, this sacrament would be accomplished.”
Indeed, in our article 3, St. Thomas says “through the first words ‘this is the chalice of my blood’ the very conversion into blood is signified. But through the words following, the power of the blood poured out in the passion is designated.” Therefore through the last words the very conversion is not signified, which was already effected by the prior words which signify it.
-
Nishant. Thank you for the comment.
There seems to be something missing from the citation. So, before I respond, would you explain precisely what is signified by the pronoun “it”, where Fr G-L says “Thirdly, it is proved by theological reason: ...”
-
Vatican I infallibly declared in Pastor Aeternus that whatever the Church puts forth is “to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church” . This is known as the supplied Catholic understanding of terms and clauses (Sensus Fidei).
Therefore, we are to understand the new sacramental form of the Novus Ordo rite, not according to our own judgement (which may be biased because of our reaction to the modernist heresy) but "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church".
So the words "for all" must be understood in an orthodox manner as meaning for the Elect only. This is "ALL" the members of the Body of Christ, not those oustide the Church, which implies the heresy of universal salvation. It is clear that the Sacrament is only given for those upon whom the Blood of Jesus is efficacious.
The only problem with your grasping at anything to attempt to prove your conclusion is that the very people who created the invalidating "translation" of the Form in the Novus Ordo have never given this answer. In fact, the first reason they gave was the absurd explanation that Jesus would have spoken the words in Aramaic and that language has no word for "many"; a claim that was debunked almost as soon as it was [seriously] put forth.
In short, your Novus Ordo masters do not agree with you.
-
Vatican I infallibly declared in Pastor Aeternus that whatever the Church puts forth is “to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church” . This is known as the supplied Catholic understanding of terms and clauses (Sensus Fidei).
Therefore, we are to understand the new sacramental form of the Novus Ordo rite, not according to our own judgement (which may be biased because of our reaction to the modernist heresy) but "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church".
So the words "for all" must be understood in an orthodox manner as meaning for the Elect only. This is "ALL" the members of the Body of Christ, not those oustide the Church, which implies the heresy of universal salvation. It is clear that the Sacrament is only given for those upon whom the Blood of Jesus is efficacious.
The only problem with your grasping at anything to attempt to prove your conclusion is that the very people who created the invalidating "translation" of the Form in the Novus Ordo have never given this answer. In fact, the first reason they gave was the absurd explanation that Jesus would have spoken the words in Aramaic and that language has no word for "many"; a claim that was debunked almost as soon as it was [seriously] put forth.
In short, your Novus Ordo masters do not agree with you.
Because they, as well as everyone else, have been infected by the modernist heresy of universal salvation and indifferentism. Not because the rite itself is invalid. Pope Paul VI was exercising his proper authority when introducing and approving a new rite. Unless of course, one happens to adopt the sedevacantist position in which, well, everything is possible...
-
Y'all are barking up the wrong tree. The issue isn't the form. It's the intention. Exactly what was the intention of the reformers? To do what the Holy Roman Catholic Church does? And if not, how could the product of such reformers be valid?
Read Work of Human Hands by Father Cekada.
-
In other news...
-
:laugh1:
Agreed. Once infallible always infallible.
-
Y'all are barking up the wrong tree. The issue isn't the form. It's the intention.
Actually, the issue on this thread was side-tracked in the second post.
I suggest that the proper issue here is this:
If the conditions for valid consecration
are met for the bread but not for the wine
is the bread still validly consecrated ?
The question is answered in the OP.
-
At a valid Mass, the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Consecration, and at an invalid Mass no such miraculous change occurs.
Does transubstantiation occur in the Novus Ordo Mass? Yes, it does, because the New Order is a valid rite approved and promulgated by the Pope. Unless one think that Paul VI is an anti-Pope, this is the reality.
Is it a mortal sin for a Catholic to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? No, it is not, because it is a valid rite of Mass where transubstantiation occur. Unless one is a dogmatic sedevacantist, this is just the way it is.
-
Does transubstantiation occur in the Novus Ordo Mass? Yes, it does, because the New Order is a valid rite approved and promulgated by the Pope.
Is it a mortal sin for a Catholic to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? No, it is not, because it is a valid rite of Mass where transubstantiation occur.
So says Cantarella, solely on her own authority (and digressing from the question at hand), but many of us have good grounds for believing otherwise.
-
Vatican I infallibly declared in Pastor Aeternus that whatever the Church puts forth is “to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church” . This is known as the supplied Catholic understanding of terms and clauses (Sensus Fidei).
Therefore, we are to understand the new sacramental form of the Novus Ordo rite, not according to our own judgement (which may be biased because of our reaction to the modernist heresy) but "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church".
So the words "for all" must be understood in an orthodox manner as meaning for the Elect only. This is "ALL" the members of the Body of Christ, not those oustide the Church, which implies the heresy of universal salvation. It is clear that the Sacrament is only given for those upon whom the Blood of Jesus is efficacious.
The only problem with your grasping at anything to attempt to prove your conclusion is that the very people who created the invalidating "translation" of the Form in the Novus Ordo have never given this answer. In fact, the first reason they gave was the absurd explanation that Jesus would have spoken the words in Aramaic and that language has no word for "many"; a claim that was debunked almost as soon as it was [seriously] put forth.
In short, your Novus Ordo masters do not agree with you.
Because they, as well as everyone else, have been infected by the modernist heresy of universal salvation and indifferentism. Not because the rite itself is invalid. Pope Paul VI was exercising his proper authority when introducing and approving a new rite. Unless of course, one happens to adopt the sedevacantist position in which, well, everything is possible...
Then it is certainly a good thing that all those Church officials have Cantarella here to correct them.
-
Cantarella why did you say, "Unless of course, one happens to adopt the sedevacantist position in which, well, everything is possible..."
Didn't you mean to say, if WE don't adopt the sedevacantist position we can continue to believe that anyone is possible to be our pope.
-
Dear Sunbeam, the brief excerpt I posted is from Fr. Garrigou Lagrange's De Eucharistia, an epic and masterful treatment of the theology surrounding the Holy and Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. As to your question, "it" refers to the opinion that the short form of the consecration would suffice to confect the sacrament.
After citing various authorities, Father explains that God's word is sufficient to effect what it declares, thus when He said, Let there be light, this was sufficient to effect the creation of light. In the same way, it is fitting that the words This is My Body and This is the Chalice of My Blood be sufficient to effect what they declare. The other words, however, designate the power of the Blood and therefore pertain to the integrity of the substantial form. They cannot therefore without sin be omitted at one's pleasure, however the removal would not affect the validity.
All traditional Catholics will agree that to be safe, don't attend the New Mass. But that isn't the question being asked here, it's whether the New Mass, even in the defective vernacular translation (which has just recently been corrected) is per se invalid or not, in particular whether the consecration of the wine has been invalidated. If it is, it wouldn't be right to conclude and to teach that it isn't, and vice versa, so the question isn't about what is safe, but what is the reality.
-
Nishant. Thank you, for the clarification.
We are still digressing from the original question which was: “Whether invalid consecration of the wine invalidates or at least casts doubt upon, the consecration of the bread”.
We now seem to be discussing whether the words “This is My Body” and “This is the Chalice of My Blood” be sufficient to effect what they declare.
Sticking with that for now, there seems to be a prior question to be answered, viz: whether the words “This is My Body” and “This is the Chalice of My Blood” are sufficient to declare what God wants to be declared.
Who has the better authority to answer this: Fr. Garrigou Lagrange or Pope Saint Pius V (on whose happy day, I write this)?