Author Topic: No "Mystery of Faith" : No Mass (Read 3279 times)

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #15 on:** July 03, 2014, 05:46:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Also, not having 3 cloths over the altar invalidates the Mass just as well, ...

Wow.

Wow what?

Quote

X - Defects occurring in the celebration of the rite itself

31. Defects may occur also in the performance of the rite itself, if any of the required elements is lacking, as in the following cases: if the Mass is celebrated in a place that is not sacred, or not lawfully approved, or on an altar not consecrated, or not covered with three cloths; if there are no wax candles; if it is not the proper time for celebrating Mass, which is from one hour before dawn until one hour after noon under ordinary circuмstances, unless some other time is established or permitted for certain Masses; if the priest fails to wear some one of the priestly vestments; if the priestly vestments and the altar cloths have not been blessed; if there is no cleric present nor any other man or boy serving the Mass; if there is not a chalice, with a cup of gold, or of silver with the inside gold-plated; if the paten is not gold-plated; if both chalice and paten are not consecrated by a bishop; if the corporal is not clean (and the corporal should be of linen, not decorated in the middle with silk or gold; and both corporal and pall should be blessed); if the priest celebrates Mass with his head covered, without a dispensation to do so; if there is no missal present, even though the priest may know by heart the Mass he intends to say.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #16 on:** July 03, 2014, 05:53:51 PM »

Actually, it seems not having 3 cloths and the rest that the paragraph mentions would only involve sin or scandal.

Quote

There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant. If these things are present, the Sacrament is valid, no matter what else is lacking. There are other defects, however, which may involve sin or scandal, even if they do not impair the validity of the Sacrament.

Still, the ommission of mysterium fidei is an invalidating defect of form according to this.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** July 03, 2014, 06:03:48 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Actually, it seems not having 3 cloths and the rest that the paragraph mentions would only involve sin or scandal.

Wow that you had jumped to the conclusion that not having 3 cloths invalidates the Mass. There can be thousands of "defects" that do not invalidate the Mass; and, in fact, under certain circuмstances can even be tolerated (e.g. Mass in a war zone). Just shows how much you know to be running around deposing Popes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 03, 2014, 06:06:06 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Still, the ommission of mysterium fidei is an invalidating defect of form according to this.

I don't buy that. There's more a positive doubt from the ex adjunctis than due to this particular omission.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #19 on:** July 03, 2014, 06:06:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Actually, it seems not having 3 cloths and the rest that the paragraph mentions would only involve sin or scandal.

Wow that you had jumped to the conclusion that not having 3 cloths invalidates the Mass. There can be thousands of "defects" that do not invalidate the Mass; and, in fact, under certain circuмstances can even be tolerated (e.g. Mass in a war zone). Just shows how much you know to be running around deposing Popes.

Minor detail. I hadn't read that Bull in a very long time, and was writing from memory.

Anyways, unlike you, i admitted i said something wrong.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #20 on:** July 03, 2014, 06:08:48 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Still, the ommission of mysterium fidei is an invalidating defect of form according to this.

I don't buy that. There's more a positive doubt from the ex adjunctis than due to this particular omission.

Well luckily it's not up to you.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 03, 2014, 06:10:25 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Still, the ommission of mysterium fidei is an invalidating defect of form according to this.

I don't buy that. There's more a positive doubt from the ex adjunctis than due to this particular omission.

Well luckily it's not up to you.

That's precisely the point. And it's not up to YOU either.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #22 on:** July 03, 2014, 06:29:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Still, the ommission of mysterium fidei is an invalidating defect of form according to this.

I don't buy that. There's more a positive doubt from the ex adjunctis than due to this particular omission.

Well luckily it's not up to you.

That's precisely the point. And it's not up to YOU either.

Not so. You are the one who is going against what the docuмent itself says, not me.

I apply what the docuмent says, you don't.

The docuмent says any substantial change in the formula as written and meaning renders it invalid, and unless you are going to say that mysterium fidei is no more important than the prepositions are, rendering it meaningless and accidental, when it clearly is not, then you are wrong.

But you do regard the new rite of consecration as invalid, so why do you make a fuss about this?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 03, 2014, 10:53:18 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

The docuмent says any substantial change in the formula as written and meaning renders it invalid, ...

Substantial vis-a-vis the essential form of the Sacrament; it's not the opposite of trivial.

Stubborn · « **Reply #24 on:** July 04, 2014, 05:07:46 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Still, the ommission of mysterium fidei is an invalidating defect of form according to this.

I don't buy that. There's more a positive doubt from the ex adjunctis than due to this particular omission.

Well luckily it's not up to you.

That's precisely the point. And it's not up to YOU either.

Not so. You are the one who is going against what the docuмent itself says, not me.

I apply what the docuмent says, you don't.

The docuмent says any substantial change in the formula as written and meaning renders it invalid, and unless you are going to say that mysterium fidei is no more important than the prepositions are, rendering it meaningless and accidental, when it clearly is not, then you are wrong.

But you do regard the new rite of consecration as invalid, so why do you make a fuss about this?

Gee wiz, suddenly he thinks he understand magisterial docuмents without an interpreter. Go figure.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #25 on:** July 04, 2014, 10:27:39 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Sneakyticks
Still, the ommission of mysterium fidei is an invalidating defect of form according to this.

I don't buy that. There's more a positive doubt from the ex adjunctis than due to this particular omission.

Well luckily it's not up to you.

That's precisely the point. And it's not up to YOU either.

Not so. You are the one who is going against what the docuмent itself says, not me.

I apply what the docuмent says, you don't.

The docuмent says any substantial change in the formula as written and meaning renders it invalid, and unless you are going to say that mysterium fidei is no more important than the prepositions are, rendering it meaningless and accidental, when it clearly is not, then you are wrong.

But you do regard the new rite of consecration as invalid, so why do you make a fuss about this?

Gee wiz, suddenly he thinks he understand magisterial docuмents without an interpreter. Go figure.

Oh so in THIS case, as opposed to Trent, you WOULD say that you would only follow what an authority would say about it, and not "believe it as it is written"?

Ye hypocrite.

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** July 05, 2014, 05:51:00 AM »

Surely since NSAAers can make it to salvation via an implicit desire for baptism, then for NSAAers to make the host validly consecrated via the same implicit desire for the Holy Eucharist should be child's play.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #27 on:** July 05, 2014, 04:22:17 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Surely since NSAAers can make it to salvation via an implicit desire for baptism, then for NSAAers to make the host validly consecrated via the same implicit desire for the Holy Eucharist should be child's play.

Surely since the infirm are dispensed from fasting, we should do away with fasting altogether.

Surely since some religious are dispensed from their vows, ALL religious should be dispensed from them as well.

Nishant · « **Reply #28 on:** July 06, 2014, 05:35:13 AM »

Mr. Omlor's study is a good one on the whole, but far from being "veritably invulnerable to refutation", on the contrary. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange in an epic work on this topic, writing before Vatican II and the modern controversy, affirmed based on several authorities that the short form of the consecration is sufficient for validity, the other words however cannot be omitted without sin, they are essential not for validity but for integirty.

Quote from: Fr. Garrigou Lagrange

According to Billuart and many others, more probably, only the words, this is the chalice of my blood, or this is my blood, suffice for validity.

It is proved in the first place from the Fathers especially St. Justin, Apolog. 2, and Damascene bk. 4, Concerning the Orthodox Faith, c. 14, who say that the consecration is brought about in these words: this is my body and this is my blood. Likewise the author Concerning the Lords Supper in St. Cyprian, and Innocent III in bk. 4 de Missa, c. 6.

Secondly, it is proved from the liturgies of the Greeks. The Greeks preserve the essential form, for they validly consecrate, as all confess. But they do not mention the words: of the new and eternal testament, etc.

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.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #29 on:** July 13, 2014, 11:08:55 PM »

Quote

Pre-Vatican 2 treatises on the liturgy and sacramental theology that lay down the requirements for the validity of the consecration at Mass and examine invalidating defects in the sacramental form insist that the essential formulas MUST NOT be pronounced as a mere HISTORICAL NARRATIVE:

Defects in the Form of the Sacrament... Any change in the form, by omission, addition or interpolation which would alter its MEANING would make the consecration INVALID... The Words of Consecration have to be said NOT MERELY AS AN HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OF WORDS once used by Our Lord, - as the celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts of the Last Supper which are read in the Mass in Holy Week, or on the Feast of Corpus Christi - but as a present affirmation, speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something here and now, by pronouncing these words.

The Words of Consecration must be pronounced not only as if said by Christ HISTORICALLY, NARRATIVELY AND RECITATIVELY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF NARRATING THOSE THINGS THAT CHRIST DID... but they must also be said ASSERTIVELY or SIGNIFICATIVELY, for the purpose of imitating Christ and applying the words to [the bread and wine] that is present.

How the words are to be pronounced: The Words of Consecration must be said not only RECITATIVELY (i.e. MATERIALLY), but also significatively or formally, in such a way that the Priest who consecrates not only refers to what Christ said, but moreover, in uttering those words, intends to affirm what they signify [sonat] - This is in truth the body and blood of Christ. -Felix Cappello, Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis 1:289.

In the Eucharistic Prayers of the Mass of Paul 6, however, this is EXACTLY the invalidating defect that we find. The erstwhile sacramental forms found in the Traditional Mass were transformed into INSTITUTION NARRATIVES. This the creators of the New Mass made abundantly clear in paragraph 55.d of the 1969 General Instruction, and the details of the rite itself confirm it. So the priest/presider, instead of acting "significatively" or "assertively" in the person of Christ, now merely tells a story quoting the words that Our Lord spoke long ago.

Thus, the crowning glory of the modernist despoliation of the hated Roman Canon: substantial changes in the form of the Sacrament that alter the intrinsic sense of the words, change the ministerial intention, and render the consecration - and the Mass of Paul 6 - INVALID.

From Work of Human Hands.