EWTN says GET ONE WORD WRONG MASS INVALID

[Budge]

You when it comes to magic spells, having the exact words is very important to occultists.

Jesus never intended anything like the Mass for the Lord's Supper.

I think it is frightening that one word WRONG, will mess up the Catholic Mass. What about a priest with a bad accent or doesnt even know English well? Among yourselves it seems the intention and form are up to debate.

Does this mean the EWTN expert got it wrong?

Catholicism confuses even Catholics, even the clergy seem confused about this one.

[quote]Budge's post is a moot point since the EWTN response was regarding the WORDS OF CONSECRATION/WORDS OF INSTITUTION and not the entirety of the Liturgy.[/quote]

I believe they may have changed some of those.

but Ill check it out.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Budge

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Budge, they did not change the words of consecration 'THIS IS MY BODY', etc. and that's what the EWTN response was referring to.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1014547' date='Jun 29 2006, 12:10 PM']
You when it comes to magic spells, having the exact words is very important to occultists.

Jesus never intended anything like the Mass for the Lord's Supper.

I think it is frightening that one word WRONG, will mess up the Catholic Mass. What about a priest with a bad accent or doesnt even know English well? Among yourselves it seems the intention and form are up to debate.

Does this mean the EWTN expert got it wrong?

Catholicism confuses even Catholics, even the clergy seem confused about this one.
I believe they may have changed some of those.

but Ill check it out.
[/quote]

I was waiting to see what approach and tactic you would pick :

Transubstantiation is not magic.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

It's not magic, it's the instruction of Jesus Christ Himself.

God created through the Word and Spirit. At Mass, the word of Christ which the priest, acting as Christ, prays, invokes the Holy Spirit, in order to effect a change in substance. Christ spoke and what He said was true, because He is truth, "this is My Body." The priest, in the Holy Spirit, acting in persona Christi, does the same, and because of this, the same result is achieved. The Mass isn't magic; the Mass is a cooperation in the new creation of the whole earth and a foretaste of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Just read this quote out of coincidence and thought it was worth adding:

"Since Christ Himself has said, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?" -St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Edited June 29, 2006 by Raphael

[Budge]

[quote]
"Since Christ Himself has said, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?" -St. Cyril of Jerusalem[/quote]

Jesus hadnt gone to the cross yet at the time of the Last Supper, why would he be ingesting "his own body"? instead of teaching the true spiritual lesson that John 6 is really about?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1016238' date='Jul 2 2006, 02:46 PM']
Jesus hadnt gone to the cross yet at the time of the Last Supper, why would he be ingesting "his own body"? instead of teaching the true spiritual lesson that John 6 is really about?
[/quote]
First, I don't believe Christ ever ingested His own Body. The Gospel accounts claim that Christ blessed the Body and Blood and passed it on. He in fact said that He was deliberately not eating the Pasch.

Second, the fact that He hadn't yet gone to the Cross is irrelevant, since we aren't talking about His local presence.

Third, He had already been very clear about His meaning in John 6.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

If we deny Christ could pass out His own body at the Last Supper, we deny His divinity which allows Him to transcend time. If the First Eucharist was impossible, we must conclude Christ is not Divine.

[journeyman]

[quote name='thedude' post='1016326' date='Jul 2 2006, 06:19 PM']
If we deny Christ could pass out His own body at the Last Supper, we deny His divinity which allows Him to transcend time. If the First Eucharist was impossible, we must conclude Christ is not Divine.
[/quote]


If we accept His divinity . . . and we accept that an aspect of that divinity allowed Jesus to transcend time . . . then it was not the "pre-crucifixion" Jesus that presided over the Last Supper

. . . Time paradoxes always make my head hurt . . .

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1016386' date='Jul 2 2006, 10:24 PM']
If we accept His divinity . . . and we accept that an aspect of that divinity allowed Jesus to transcend time . . . then it was not the "pre-crucifixion" Jesus that presided over the Last Supper

. . . Time paradoxes always make my head hurt . . .
[/quote]
It was pre-crucifixion Jesus in the human nature, but since His divinity is present to all time at once...

I understand the head pains.

[Resurrexi]

Many is more correct than all, so I don't see why EWTN is saying all this carp. I hope it reverts to many in the new translation.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1018359' date='Jul 6 2006, 02:12 PM']
Many is more correct than all, so I don't see why EWTN is saying all this carp. I hope it reverts to many in the new translation.
[/quote]

It's not going to. I watched the debate on the World Over.

[Resurrexi]

That's too bad

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='1018385' date='Jul 6 2006, 02:31 PM']
It's not going to. I watched the debate on the World Over.
[/quote]
I would rather have "many," but at the same time, we must trust that Christ will take care of it all, ultimately.

Rome still has to accept the changes. Maybe they will force them to change it to "many."

[pyranima]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1013815' date='Jun 28 2006, 08:19 AM']
He seems to imply that even if done accidently, the mass is invalid. That is not true, since you assume that the priest intends to do it right.
[/quote]
I smell SSPX... we are using English which means we are using translated texts. The Latin "For many" is an implication of for all because we know God wills all men to be saved thus Christs death was for all, i am an advocate for the Latin Mass and for proper tranlation in the English text.(i have done a personal translation of the Latin into English) I am glad that we will have a new translation soon being a new Catholic i dont mind the change at all.

There are 2 kinds of translations, just like there are 2 standard versions of the bible, one is a 'loose' translations also known as Dynamic and 'tight' translations also known as Formal equivalence. our current text (also the current bible read in Mass) is dynamic, which i dislike greatly, we are converting to a Formal translation which attempts to get as close as it can to the original text.

Dynaimc Translations: This translation does not worry so much about word order or grammar as much as it does preserving the original meaning of the text.

Formal equivalence Translations: This form of translation trys to give as literal of a translation as possible, thus compromising the original text less.

It is recommended that you own both Dynamic and Formal equivalence.

here are some examples of Matthew 9:16-17

NIV(dynamic)
16"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

NAS (Formal)
16"But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. 17"Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

Douay-Reims or Protestant Equiv KJV(Formal)
16And nobody putteth a piece of raw cloth unto an old garment. For it taketh away the fulness thereof from the garment, and there is made a greater rent.

17Neither do they put new wine into old bottles. Otherwise the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish. But new wine they put into new bottles: and both are preserved.


CEV(Dynamic)
16No one uses a new piece of cloth to patch old clothes. The patch would shrink and tear a bigger hole.

17No one pours new wine into old wineskins. The wine would swell and burst the old skins. [a] Then the wine would be lost, and the skins would be ruined. New wine must be put into new wineskins. Both the skins and the wine will then be safe.


however the most craptastic bible is called 'The Message' and i wont bother to ref. it if you want to know what a good job it does look at biblegateway.com and look at John 1 on the NIV NAB and The Message.

From personal experience as one who reads the Latin Vulgate it is difficult to translate things from one language into another the text we use now are not wrong, however they are not as accurate as they could be. here is a real life example of what translation is like, If i see a car speeding and a Cop asks me "what color was it" and i say 'blue' but the care was baby blue then i am not telling a lie to the cop but i am not being as accurate as i could be.