Author Topic: Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass (Read 11664 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #40 on:** November 01, 2018, 10:03:38 AM »

https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/31482784/De-Defectibus-Decree-of-Trent

Chapter 2
V. 1. DEFECTS may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting tocomplete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: Hoc est enim Corpus meum;

and: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti; mysterium fidei, qui provobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning doesnot invalidate the consecration, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin.

---

From Pope Paul VI's Missale Romanum, introduction of the New Mass:
Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR;

over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM.

The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.

---

It's debatable if the moving of the chalice's "mystery of faith" phrase alters the meaning. It's debatable if the use of "for all" in the english translation changed the meaning. It's debatable if the additional words to the bread/chalice formula changes the meaning from the priest speaking in first-person (as Christ) to a narrative recounting of Holy Thursday. All these debatable facts give rise to EXTREME doubts to the validity of the new mass.

What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance. The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #41 on:** November 01, 2018, 10:06:13 AM »

Quote

Talking about whether the Novus Ordo is valid sends us down a rabbit trail of determining the minimum requirements for validity and whether or not the NO meets them.

If there are facts which establish doubt, then that is all that is necessary for one to avoid it. Canon law does not allow one to attend doubtful masses or sacraments under pain of sin. Therefore, it is not necessary to establish a concrete answer but just to establish problems.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** November 01, 2018, 10:07:43 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on November 01, 2018, 02:46:07 AM

.
As usual, you've done a fine job of defending Tradition, JayneK, but it would seem your words would be lost on the recipient ("the Cub"), since he's most likely not about to read what you wrote, or, at best, if he does read it, he won't pay attention to what you're saying, but will only attempt to refute or argue against your sound propositions.
.
He's not going to read Mediator Dei either, for the same reasons! He doesn't want to know what it contains, because it's inconvenient for his agenda.

Correct. Cub is nothing more than a troll. He heard about Traditional Catholics, maybe Googled it up, maybe ran into one somewhere, and felt as if he would do the world a service by converting some of those Trads who are known to hang out at CathInfo. He has about as much theological aptitude, given his Novus Ordo background, as a local-variety garden turnip. So theological arguments are wasted on Cub.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** November 01, 2018, 10:12:11 AM »

Prior to this post, all of Cub's activity had been related to end-times scenarios ... financial collapse, etc.

I believe this might be the same person as a poster on this forum: www.timebomb2000.com

I was actually on that secular forum (got booted several times for anti-Semitism and just opened new accounts), and during one of my vocal anti-Protestant rants, someone pointed me in the direction of CathInfo.

Jaynek · « **Reply #44 on:** November 01, 2018, 10:16:30 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on November 01, 2018, 10:03:38 AM

It's debatable if the moving of the chalice's "mystery of faith" phrase alters the meaning. It's debatable if the use of "for all" in the english translation changed the meaning. It's debatable if the additional words to the bread/chalice formula changes the meaning from the priest speaking in first-person (as Christ) to a narrative recounting of Holy Thursday. All these debatable facts give rise to EXTREME doubts to the validity of the new mass.

What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance. The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin.

I think this was a good summary of probably the strongest argument for claiming the NO is invalid. I agree, that, whether or not it makes the NO invalid, it was wrong to make changes that affected the Consecration. I question, however, your last comment:

"What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance. The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin."

I don't think it is public knowledge. It seems to me that the average Novus Ordo attendee has no idea that the formula is different. In my experience, the vast majority think that the NO is a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass and that the only real difference between them is the language.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass (Read 11664 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass

Pax Vobis

Re: Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass

Ladislaus

Re: Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass

Ladislaus

Re: Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass

Jaynek

Re: Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass