...which is why Sean finds (modernist or otherwise) theologians which support +W.

It’s bad enough that you’re just plain stupid, but when one of the byproducts is mumbling about irrelevant subjects, and gratuitously so, it would be better if your momma swatted your dupa for being on the internet, and put you to bed.

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 08:44:41 PM
Sean, you seem to miss the point of my comments. Pohle's approach was Modernist. I pointed out that his ideas came from a non-Catholic, natural scientist following the evolutionary errors of Darwin. I was not attacking Pohle over some irrelevant personal quirk. He did not look traditional in his dress. Nor were his fundamental theological positions traditional. He was a theological evolutionist, i.e., a Modernist. You used him as one of your "authorities" on what the "majority opinion" is.

You don't seem to understand that "the majority" doesn't decide the truth. Remember, the majority said "crucify him." The majority of theologians today think that the Novus Ordo liturgy is an improvement over the Tridentine Mass. Would you like to side with them on that because "they have the numbers" or because their position is "more popular?"

The "for many"/"for all" is not a change of subject. That was also an invalid change to "the form of consecration of the wine." Why would you think that is a different subject matter?

St. Ambrose and St. Bonaventure do not matter. What matters is a magisterial determination of Pope Pius V in his promulgation of the Roman Missal (with its very specific instructions on invalidating changes to "the form" of the Eucharist). Why do you think you can ignore a sainted Pope? His Missal has been in use for over 400 years. To propose that "the Church" can just change "the substance of a Sacrament" is the essence of "Modernism."

As I’ve been unable to help you, I think you’d be better off talking to yourself.

Let me know who wins.

Oh, Sean knows.  But he always defends a predetermined agenda.  He's the most biased poster on Cathinfo.

True. When my husband, drew, wrote the open letter to Brian McCall defending Bishop Williamson's criticism of the Six Menzingen's Propositions http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/McCall,Brian_Reply_Justice_Comments_10-13-12.htm  Sean briefly hailed him the "new Cicero" until he finished reading it all and accused him of being a Feeneyite.

I saw my name, MA, on the list of Sean's favorite posters on CI. Sean, feel free to demote me now.

As I’ve been unable to help you, I think you’d be better off talking to yourself.

Let me know who wins.

Sean, the two fundamental errors that inform the theological opinions of the authors you cite are: ecuмenism and Modernism.


Ecuмenism

This error is driven by the anxiety felt by certain theologians about their separated brethren. Their soft-heartedness in this respect leads them to think that "if we only focus on what is really important, we will all be brothers again." So, they take a "minimalist" position on the Sacramental "form." They point to the New Testament accounts of the "words of Jesus" and say, "can't we just all agree on those words that are found in all the Gospels (i.e., 'this is my blood')."

Why is this an error? Because, as all Catholics know, the Mass existed BEFORE any of the New Testament books were written. The Traditional "form" of the Apostles included the words "mysterium fidei." The fact that those words were not written down by the evangelists doesn't prove that those words were not in the form. None of the evangelists agrees on the precise words of Jesus at the Last Supper. So, the exact words found in each Gospel are not meant to be authoritative as regards the Sacramental "form." The Church Tradition is authoritative in that matter. And we know that the Church Tradition includes "mysterium fidei."

But again, your modern theological "authorities" don't want to accept Tradition or the promulgation of settled teaching found in De defectibus. Why? Because it creates "a bridge too far" in their dream of bring all the Separated Brethren back into the fold. So they (the majority) push minimalism from this motive. 

Modernism

Your "majority of theologians" were Modernists. They had taken over the seminaries by the beginning of the 20th century. That is why Pascendi was promulgated by Pius X. The authors you cite were in agreement with the end goals of Modernism found in the post-Vatican II era.

The Modernists are motivated by theological libertinism. They don't like to be limited by prior Magisterial teachings and laws. They think that any prior teaching can evolve to the point of full contradiction if the "spirit of the age" requires it. But we know as traditional Catholics that prior, settled, authoritative, infallible teaching cannot NEVER BE CONTRADICTED.

I showed you that Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Roman Missal using a Papal Bull Quo Primum, in which he included not only the Order of the Mass but the instructions on defects and how to correct them. Some defects are minor and easily corrected. Some are major and the result, if the rules "the form" of the Eucharist are not followed precisely the result is "non conficeret Sacramentum." Note that he did not say, unlawful or imprecise or not perfect. He said "the Sacrament is not confected." In other words, the attempted consecration was a dud.

But, the modernist-ecuмenist theologians (the "majority" in the 20th century) did not like what Pope St. Pius V promulgated. And they set out to ignore him and try to change everyone's mind, starting with priests-seminarians.

So, Sean, you are wrong to cite untrustworthy authorities. Go back to the papal magisterium. No "majority" of theologians can overturn a promulgated decision of a Pope. Every single traditional Roman Missal contains his precise instructions on "the form of he consecration of the wine" and the consequence of not following those instructions is, the Pope says, that "the Sacrament is not confected."

Sean, the two fundamental errors that inform the theological opinions of the authors you cite are: ecuмenism and Modernism.


Ecuмenism

This error is driven by the anxiety felt by certain theologians about their separated brethren. Their soft-heartedness in this respect leads them to think that "if we only focus on what is really important, we will all be brothers again." So, they take a "minimalist" position on the Sacramental "form." They point to the New Testament accounts of the "words of Jesus" and say, "can't we just all agree on those words that are found in all the Gospels (i.e., 'this is my blood')."

Why is this an error? Because, as all Catholics know, the Mass existed BEFORE any of the New Testament books were written. The Traditional "form" of the Apostles included the words "mysterium fidei." The fact that those words were not written down by the evangelists doesn't prove that those words were not in the form. None of the evangelists agrees on the precise words of Jesus at the Last Supper. So, the exact words found in each Gospel are not meant to be authoritative as regards the Sacramental "form." The Church Tradition is authoritative in that matter. And we know that the Church Tradition includes "mysterium fidei."

But again, your modern theological "authorities" don't want to accept Tradition or the promulgation of settled teaching found in De defectibus. Why? Because it creates "a bridge too far" in their dream of bring all the Separated Brethren back into the fold. So they (the majority) push minimalism from this motive.

Modernism

Your "majority of theologians" were Modernists. They had taken over the seminaries by the beginning of the 20th century. That is why Pascendi was promulgated by Pius X. The authors you cite were in agreement with the end goals of Modernism found in the post-Vatican II era.

The Modernists are motivated by theological libertinism. They don't like to be limited by prior Magisterial teachings and laws. They think that any prior teaching can evolve to the point of full contradiction if the "spirit of the age" requires it. But we know as traditional Catholics that prior, settled, authoritative, infallible teaching cannot NEVER BE CONTRADICTED.

I showed you that Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Roman Missal using a Papal Bull Quo Primum, in which he included not only the Order of the Mass but the instructions on defects and how to correct them. Some defects are minor and easily corrected. Some are major and the result, if the rules "the form" of the Eucharist are not followed precisely the result is "non conficeret Sacramentum." Note that he did not say, unlawful or imprecise or not perfect. He said "the Sacrament is not confected." In other words, the attempted consecration was a dud.

But, the modernist-ecuмenist theologians (the "majority" in the 20th century) did not like what Pope St. Pius V promulgated. And they set out to ignore him and try to change everyone's mind, starting with priests-seminarians.

So, Sean, you are wrong to cite untrustworthy authorities. Go back to the papal magisterium. No "majority" of theologians can overturn a promulgated decision of a Pope. Every single traditional Roman Missal contains his precise instructions on "the form of he consecration of the wine" and the consequence of not following those instructions is, the Pope says, that "the Sacrament is not confected."

You are proving yourself to be an idiot.

Nobody before you ever accused any of the three of modernism and ecuмenism.

You are bending reality to fit within your narrative.

You are proving yourself to be an idiot.

Nobody before you ever accused any of the three of modernism and ecuмenism.

You are bending reality to fit within your narrative.

So, I am convincing you of something. That's good. Making progress.

Let's look at what the rubrics in the traditional Roman hand-missal (the Angelus missal) say:

------------
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM

After pronouncing the words of the consecration, the priest, kneeling, adores the Sacred Host; rising he elevates It, and then placing It on the corporal again adores It. After this, he never disjoins his forefingers and thumbs, except when he is to take the Host, until after the washing of his fingers.
 -------

What's going on here, Drew? Is the priest adoring a piece of regular wheat bread at that point? Is the missal and all the traditional liturgical practices of the Roman Catholic church not following the "divine and Catholic faith." No, the missal is not wrong. You are wrong. The consecration of the host happens separately from the consecration of the wine. And each consecration, when accomplished by applying "the form" to "the matter" (with valid minister and intention), results in the full Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord.

You are mixing up the Sacrifice and the Sacrament. Yes, the Sacrifice requires BOTH consecrations to be done. The Sacrifice is not accomplished until the Two-fold Consecration is completed. But the Sacrament itself is confected completely in each of the two Sacramental consecrations independently.

There is no doubt in these matters.

Yes, there's no valid Mass unto both species have been consecrated, but the bread does become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ after the consecration of the bread species has been performed.  It's considered a sacrilege to consecrate one without the other, but it would truly become consecrated.  There's some dispute about whether the bread would be really consecrated if there's no intention to offer the full Mass ... but that would be a defect of intention, and the bread so consecrated should be treated as if truly consecrated due to the doubt (since it's not certain that it hasn't been consecrated).  Some of the casuistic theology manuals ask the question of what would happen if a priest dropped dead right after consecrating the bread but without having consecrated the wine, and the answer is that another priest must come in to finish that Mass in order to prevent sacrilege.