The FSSP and the SSPX

[Donna]

Who me, make no sense?

I'd be happy to elaborate, but don't know what you're not understanding (besides apparently the whole post!)

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:29 AM']Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.
[right][snapback]909923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Mysterium Fidei is present in the Missal of Paul VI. It is simply said after the words of institution, rather than during.

The Eucharist is the Eucharist. While the Church does prefer that we receive a host consecrated at the Mass we attend (this is true of any Mass), because it is a more fitting symbol, there is nothing inherently wrong with receiving the Holy Eucharist from the tabernacle. If the reason someone eschews previously-consecrated hosts is because they have doubts about the validity of the Missal of Paul VI, or doubt its doctrinal exactitude, then this is absolutely unacceptable.

[Donna]

I wonder. Maybe celebrities like Mel Gibson and Michael Davies (RIP) can get away with what certainly looks like avoiding a Mass situation where the consecrated Hosts aren't from the Latin Mass.

I mean no disrespect to them and don't know if this is certainly the case. Eh, this then might clarify something for Cam: that it seems logical that anyone going to the Latin Mass - wherever that may be - would think and expect as a matter of course that the Host received would be from THAT Mass, not from another, and especially not from a different (so to speak) rite. So because of this, people might not be aware of a practice of using consecrated Hosts from the New Mass. I'm sure ppl going to the new Mass would expect [i]those [/i]Hosts to be consecrated in the New Order Missal, hello!

Era, as you point out, the Missal of Paul VI, the Latin is the standard, the...can't find the word, official, or whatever. Fine, but if it's not translated as such, mysterium fide and etc; then it's not. "The mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again" is not "the" mysterium fide referring to the Precious Blood as salvific [i]sacramentally.[/i]

The Precious Blood being salvific sacramentally is the nutshell of the faith. It literally is the mysterium fide.

What to do with the people who cannot get past Trent, and their baltimore chatechism and Latin Mass they grew up with...I know many, working around seniors for a decade or so. It don't even take Quo Primum ("quo what, dearie?") to stoke them fires!

Edited March 14, 2006 by Donna

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:25 AM']The Precious Blood being salvific sacramentally is the nutshell of the faith. It literally is the mysterium fide.

What to do with the people who cannot get past Trent, and their baltimore chatechism and Latin Mass they grew up with...I know many, working around seniors for a decade or so. It don't even take Quo Primum ("quo what, dearie?") to stoke them fires!
[right][snapback]911004[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is no "Mysterium Fidei" in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at all. Of course, that is no reason to question it, anymore than we should question the Liturgy of Paul VI.

What to do with them...I'm not sure. I'll grant that it is a pastoral problem. I guess there are no easy answers.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:29 AM']Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.
[right][snapback]909923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Again, I have spoken to the cosecratory words. In both the indult and the Missa Normativa, the words of consecration are the same.

(Indult)
For the Host:
[b]HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.[/b]

For the Wine:
[b]HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI:[/b]
MYSTERIUM FIDEI:
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.


(Missa Normativa)
For the Host:
[b]HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM[/b]

For the Wine:
[b]HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI
NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI,[/b]
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR
IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM.
HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM.
MYSTERIUM FIDEI

There is no substantial change in the wording. There is change in the order of the wording, however it is all included. AND the acutal words of consecration are bolded. They are IDENTICAL.

People do not have a right to attend whatever Mass they want. They have a right to the Sacraments, not a right to the Sacrament of their choosing. This is clearly stated by Msgr. Perl.

[quote name='Msgr. Camille Perl']Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

1.  In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

2.  We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

3.  It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

[b]You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it.[/b]

[b][i][u]Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice." [/u][/i][/b]

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary[/quote]

So, again, this is a matter of obedience to the wishes of the Holy Father, to whom we owe our obedience.....

[Amator Veritatis]

Noteworthy, perhaps, is that the words of the Consecration are not merely [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti[/i]. The position of most twentieth century theologians was that the necessary words of Consecration were simply [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei[/i]. It seems a bit odd that you have included [i]novi et aeterni testamenti[/i] for some reason. In any event, the actual words of Consecration, as found in the traditional Missale Romanum are these: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i]. Besides, the formulae you have given are not the extent of the words of Consecration, even as they are found in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. The words of Consecration in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] are as follows: [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes : hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur[/i] and [i]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[/i]. For some reason in your statement comparing the two formulae for Consecration, you seem to have omitted the introductory phrases which have been deemed to be a part of the words of Consecration and to have omitted the later part of the words of Consecration for the host, namely, [i]quod pro vobis tradetur[/i]. You have also added [i]mysterium fidei[/i] as though it were a part of the Consecration. These words, however, are not a part of the words deemed to be a part of the Consecration. These facts are attested by the Apostolic Constitution [i]Missale Romanum[/i] of Paul VI.

Both for pastoral reasons, however, and for the facilitation of concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each Eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur[/i]; over the chalice: [i]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[/i]. [i]Hoc facite in meam commemorationem[/i]. The words [i]Mysterium fidei[/i] have been removed from the context of Christ's own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful's acclamation. Cf., [i]Missale Romanum[/i], Paul VI.


Paul VI. states rather clearly that the words [i]mysterium fidei[/i] are no longer a part of the Consecration both by failing to mention them in his enumeration of the formulae for Consecration and by his statement that they have been removed from the words of Our Lord and are spoken rather as an introduction to the so-called acclamation of the faithful. After correction these errors, the formulae for the words of Consecration as they stand in the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] are as follows:

Traditional Mass:
For the host: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i].

For the chalice: [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i].

Novus Ordo Missae:
For the host: [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes : hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur[/i].

For the chalice: [i]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 peccatorm : hoc facite in meam commemorationem[/i].

N.B., the words [i]Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes[/i] for the host and [i]Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes[/i] for the chalice antecede the words of Consecration in the traditional Mass. Between the two Consecrations are the following words: [i]Simili modo postquam coenatum est : accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas : item tibi gratias agens benedixit deditque discipulis suis dicens : accipite et bibite ex eo omnes[/i]. Following the Consecration of the chalice are the words [i]Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis[/i]. These statements are not a part of the words of Consecration as outlined by the Council of Florence, [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i] and the Missale Romanum itself.

With those corrections made, the formulae for the words of Consecration in the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] may now be compared accurately. The fact that some theologians--the gravely vast minority throughout history--hold that the necessary words are restricted to [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i] and [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei[/i] does not make such a position true. In fact, the various documents of the Church throughout history have not given rise to such theories. The pertinent documents regarding the words of Consecration have made no distinction, claiming which words are necessary and which are not, but it must be understood that all the words are not necessary for validity, as is noted in [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i]--often, simply, [i]De Defectibus[/i]--which can be found in the traditional Missale Romanum. Now, the Council of Florence states the following regarding the words of Consecration:

Because in the aforementioned decree of the Armenians the form of the words which the Holy Roman Church, strengthened by apostolic doctrine and authority, had always been wont to use in the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord is not explicit, we have decided to insert it in the present decree. In the consecration of the Body this form of words is used: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i]; and for the Blood: [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum[/i].


As the decree illustrates, "the words which the Holy Roman Church...[has] always been wont to use" are precisely those found in the traditional Missale Romanum. A similar declaration can be found in [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i].

Defects may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this sacrament, are as follows: [i]Hoc est enim corpus meum[/i]. And: [i]Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.[/i] 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 does not invalidate the consecration but the celebrant commits a mortal sin.


As was stated earlier, [i]De Defectibus Formae[/i] states that a change could be made without invalidating the Consecration. Now, as far as determining which words are necessary for validity, the Church has given no guidelines. As a result, there is no certainty as to which words are not necessary. Because this is the case, one is not able to assert that any given word is itself unnecessary but only that, in general, not all the words are necessary. Speculation in this area is, of course, possible, but it is by no means certain. The claim that the essential words of Consecration are identical in both the traditional Mass and the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] is simply fallacious. The formulae previously cited as those used for the Consecration of the host and the Consecration of the chalice in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] were erroneous. As to my opinion as to which words are necessary, I can make no definitive statement, for such is merely speculation without certainty. I can say, however, that, should the meaning expressed in the words of Consecration be changed at all, the formula for Consecration would be invalid. This much is beyond doubt.


As a concluding and clarifying remark, the [i]pro multis[/i], properly speaking, is not found in the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] in the vernacular languages. In its place is found the [i]pro omnibus[/i], i.e., for all. In this manner, one would properly state that the English [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] contains neither the [i]mysterium fidei[/i] nor the [i]pro multis[/i] in its formula for Consecration of the chalice, which seems to have been the point of Donna. The [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], does, of course, contain the [i]pro multis[/i] in its Latin form.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Amator Veritatis]

Cam, would you like to respond?

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholic vs Catholic Debate

A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. [color=green]This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/color]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 17 2006, 09:57 AM']Cam, would you like to respond?
[right][snapback]913815[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Based upon forum guidelines, no.

I will defend the Missa Normativa (and the Tridentine Liturgy), but I will not debate it. You are engaging a debate. I am sorry, but my statements are not about debate, nor are they above reproach.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date=' Posted Today, 10:16 AM']Catholic vs Catholic Debate

A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. [color=green]This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.[/quote][/color]

No. I will not respond.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you wish to pursue this via pm , enjoy.