Author Topic: NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST  (Read 500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lover of Truth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8525
  • Reputation: +1094/-833
  • Gender: Male
NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
« on: February 12, 2014, 11:15:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

    6)  NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORD'S WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST

    The Source of Power in These Words
    47.  From some examples given above it was seen that as regards the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation a slight variation in wording is permissible, provided that the essential sense of the words of the form is not affected.  But in the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist a special case presents itself.  Here there must be no variation whatsoever.

    48.  In all the sacraments except the Holy Eucharist the minister has an act to perform in addition to pronouncing the required words of the form.  For example, pouring water in Baptism, anointing with chrism in Confirmation, and in Holy Orders the imposition of hands, etc., which constitute the matter of that sacrament.  But in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the priest has no act to perform except the pronouncing of the necessary words. (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1).

    49.  Moreover, the power of the form of this sacrament is derived solely from the fact that the words spoken by the priest are the exact words of Our Lord.  "But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1).

    50.  "Ambrose says (De Sacram.. iv): 'The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. . . . (W)hen the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ.'"  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1).

    Our Lord's Words in the Ancient Form
    51.  It cannot be doubted that the ancient, established form for the consecration of the wine comprises the words of Our Lord.  But inasmuch as there are always those pseudo-Catholics who relish questioning everything - the revered Traditions of the Church and Holy Scripture not excluded - the following proofs are presented.

    52.  Proof from Holy Scripture.  As St. Thomas observes, "Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 3).  In point of fact, the only words of this form which are not to be found in the Holy Scriptures are the following: (a) and eternal and (b) The Mystery of Faith.

    53.  But Tradition reveals to us that these words, and eternal and The Mystery of Faith were also from Our Lord.  "The words added, namely, eternal and Mystery of Faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from Our Lord."  (Ibid.)

    54.  And, elsewhere in discussing the question, "Whether the Words Spoken in This Sacrament Are Properly Framed?"  (Summa Th., III, Q. 83, Art. 4), the Angelic Doctor makes this observation, "We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. 1, that 'James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the Mass.'"

    55.  To summarize: The words which had always been used for the form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist were the words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as proved from Holy Scripture and Tradition.  These words were used by the Apostles themselves.  It is by virtue of these words that the form for this sacrament derives its power and efficacy.

    Putting Words into Our Lord's Mouth
    56.  The new "form" for the consecration of the wine alleges that Our Lord said: "to be shed for you and for all men . . . etc."  There is no evidence - either in Holy Scripture or in the Traditions handed down - that Our Lord actually said this when instituting the Holy Eucharist.

    57.  Moreover, all the evidence is that He did not say: "for all men," when instituting the Most Holy Sacrament.  St. Matthew (26,28) writes that He said, "for many."  And also St. Mark (14,24) records that Our Lord said, "for many."  But nowhere in Holy Scripture - neither in St. Paul nor the Evangelists - do we find that Our Lord said, "for all men."  Now whom are we to believe?  Are we to believe St. Mark and St. Matthew, who was actually there at the Last Supper (and both of whom were divinely inspired to write what they wrote)?  Or, are we to believe an "enlightened" clique of mid-twentieth-century Modernists and Innovators?

    58.  Even in ordinary writing or oratory, careful scholars are diligent in using the exact words of another person whenever attributing to him a quotation.  How much more diligence is demanded when attributing a direct quote to Jesus!  "It is not lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery." (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 8).

    59.  Now, the authors of this new Canon boldly claim that Our Lord said something that He clearly and obviously did not say.  (In Part 12 it will be shown that Our Lord could not have said what they claim He did.)  The text of this new Canon reads precisely: "He . . . gave the cup . . . AND SAID:".  The "quotation" immediately following includes the bogus phrase: "for all men so that sins may be forgiven."  THIS IS A FORGERY, and those who are responsible for it must be deemed guilty of a deliberate deception, unless they can prove that they are merely completely inept and most culpably negligent.

    60.  It might be remarked, in passing, that the phrase for you and for all men grammatically is inelegant in that it is redundant.  By analogy, a speaker does not single out one person in a group and say, "This is for you and for all in this room," but rather would he say, "This is for you and for all others in this room."  For it is obvious that the person who is singled out is automatically included in "all in this room."  Thus the Innovators even go so far as to attribute inferior rhetoric to Our Lord.

    61.  From the foregoing it is clear that, by tampering with the words of Our Lord, our Modernists are endangering the very source of the power of this sacrament.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline fast777

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #1 on: February 12, 2014, 12:42:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's another problem,the NO Mass is said in the Narrative:

    "However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting).

    Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity.

    The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in principle 5) been respected? While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt."

    SSPX web site


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20130
    • Reputation: +10995/-5299
    • Gender: Male
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #2 on: February 12, 2014, 12:54:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: fast777
    "However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention."

    SSPX web site


    Even the Traditional Mass couldn't guarantee this kind of intention.  Of course this is the WRONG understanding of intention.

    Intending to DO what the Church DOES simply means to follow the rite prescribed by the Church ... regardless of what heresy a priest might hold regarding the nature of the Mass and Transubstantiation, just performing the rite prescribed by the Church IS intending to DO what the Church DOES.  That's why it is phrased that way rather than "Intending what the Church intends."

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8525
    • Reputation: +1094/-833
    • Gender: Male
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #3 on: February 12, 2014, 01:22:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: fast777
    There's another problem,the NO Mass is said in the Narrative:

    "However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting).

    Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity.

    The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in principle 5) been respected? While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt."

    SSPX web site


    If you compare the two.  You will see how the new location of a period alters the meaning of the consecration.  Off the top of my head.

    For you and for all.  So that sins may be forgiven.

    For you and for many unto the remission of sins.  Perhaps someone can get exact quotes for us.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline fast777

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #4 on: February 12, 2014, 01:28:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm

    It is not Catholic not one bit. The Priest is but telling a story.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #5 on: February 12, 2014, 02:10:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: fast777
    There's another problem,the NO Mass is said in the Narrative:

    "However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting).

    Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity.

    The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in principle 5) been respected? While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt."

    SSPX web site


    If you compare the two.  You will see how the new location of a period alters the meaning of the consecration.  Off the top of my head.

    For you and for all.  So that sins may be forgiven.

    For you and for many unto the remission of sins.  Perhaps someone can get exact quotes for us.


    Consecration of the Wine

    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 unto the remission of sins.

    Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

    Here is the Novus Ordo Latin Formula:

    Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est Enim Calix Sanguines mei, Novi et aeterni Testamenti, Qui pro vobis et pro multis Effundtur in remissionem peccatorum, (Hoc facite In meam commemorationem). This part in parenthesis was added on to the consecration formula and changed from the Latin Mass (Heac quotiescumque faceritis, in mei memoriam facie tis).

    Mysterium fidei has been removed from the formula and put after the formula.

    The Novus Ordo translation in English is even more faulty and is not even an exact translation of the Novus Ordo Latin formula which still contains the " pro multis" (for many, not all). Here it is:

    Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new And everlasting covenant.  It will be shed for You and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.  Do this in memory of me.

    The change "for all men" in the Holy Eucharist, the substance of the sacraments, cannot have been validly or legitimately.  The matter of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the host (made from only wheat and water) and wine; and the form are the words.  In the Consecration of the Precious Blood, the Form has actually changed by other parts have been added (Accipite et bibite ex eo omens and Hoc facite In meam commemorationem) and some removed from the formula (Mysterium fidei).

    Infallibly the Church has taught:

    Pope ST Pius X: "It is well known that the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching the substance of the Sacraments". Thus even the Church Herself has no power or authority to alter the words or matter in the form of a Sacrament.

    Pope Pius XII: " As the Council of Trent teaches the seven sacraments  of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments".
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline fast777

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #6 on: February 12, 2014, 02:19:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I still don't see where the Priest takes the initiative to go unto the altar with intent to enter into a sacrifice with God. He must announce his intent by his own free will. Even though he is ordained doesn't mean this act of free will does not need to happen and it is in the present,not in the past.

    Offline fast777

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #7 on: February 12, 2014, 03:24:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The first sentence of the Mass

    I will go in unto the Altar of God.



    To God, Who giveth joy to my youth.
         
           
    Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.
    R. For Thou, O God, art my strength: why hast Thou cast me off? and why do I go sorrowful whilst the enemy afflictech me?
    V. Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have led me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and into Thy tabernacles.
    R. And I will go in unto the Altar of God: unto God, Who giveth joy to my youth.
    V. I will praise Thee upon the harp, O God, my God: why art thou sad, O my soul? and why dost thou disquiet me?
    R. Hope thou in God, for I will yet praise Him: Who is the salvation of my countenance, and my God.
    V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
    R. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.


    V. I will go in unto the Altar of God.
    R. Unto God, Who giveth joy to my youth.

    V. Our help  is in the Name of the Lord.
    R. Who hath made heaven and earth


    Offline Sunbeam

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 246
    • Reputation: +275/-2
    • Gender: Male
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #8 on: February 12, 2014, 04:32:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I beleive that, in regard to sacramental validity, the following authoritatively settled what is meant by "intention":

    Quote from: Pope  Leo XIII
    The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

    Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 18 September 1896.

    Although this was written with particular reference to the Sacrament of Holy Order, I believe that the underlying principle applies to every Sacrament.

    It seems to be arguable that the necessary intention is wanting to the Novus Ordo Missae, precisely because, by it, the rite of Mass WAS “changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament”.

    Offline fast777

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST
    « Reply #9 on: February 12, 2014, 04:47:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Sunbeam
    I beleive that, in regard to sacramental validity, the following authoritatively settled what is meant by "intention":

    Quote from: Pope  Leo XIII
    The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.

    Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 18 September 1896.

    Although this was written with particular reference to the Sacrament of Holy Order, I believe that the underlying principle applies to every Sacrament.

    It seems to be arguable that the necessary intention is wanting to the Novus Ordo Missae, precisely because, by it, the rite of Mass WAS “changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament”.


    The Latin Mass follows this. The NO I do not think does. At best it is questionable.

    The Priest declares his intention by reading the Mass, It is clearly stated therefore it is valid. In the NO that does not happen.


     

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